Slashdot Mirror


Scientists Image an HIV Particle Being Born

FiReaNGeL alerts us to a huge development in virology and microscopy: by using a specialized microscope that only illuminates a cell's surface, scientists at Rockefeller University have watched, in real time, hundreds of thousands of molecules coming together in a living cell to form a single particle of HIV-1. A video is available on Rockefeller's front page. "By zeroing in at the cell's surface, the team became the first to document the time it takes for each HIV particle, or virion, to assemble: five to six minutes. 'At first, we had no idea whether it would take milliseconds or hours,' says Jouvenet. 'We just didn't know.' 'This is the first time anyone has seen a virus particle being born,' says Bieniasz, who is an associate professor and head of the Laboratory of Retrovirology at Rockefeller and a scientist at the Aaron Diamond AIDS Research Center. 'Not just HIV,' he clarifies, 'any virus.'"

88 of 129 comments (clear)

  1. A viral video... by Tarcastil · · Score: 5, Funny

    A viral video that benefits science?

    1. Re:A viral video... by Exitar · · Score: 1

      From Virusmyth.com

      "Up to today there is actually no single scientifically really convincing evidence for the existence of HIV. Not even once such a retrovirus has been isolated and purified by the methods of classical virology."
      Dr. Heinz Ludwig Sanger, Emeritus Professor of Molecular Biology and Virology, Max-Planck-Institutes for Biochemy, Munchen.


      So he's probably watching the video with his tin foil hat and is thinking it's a fake made by the men in black...

    2. Re:A viral video... by Hal_Porter · · Score: 2, Funny

      Cue hundreds of dumbass threads from Slashdotters who know nothing at all about 'HIV'.

      HIV is not the cause of AIDS.

      Read "Science Sold Out". Go to Virusmyth.com.

      NewAidsReview.com

      etc.etc.

      Indicator disease + 'HIV' = 'AIDS'
      Indicator disease - 'HIV' = Indicator disease

      Circular argument.

      Why aren't millions of people in the West DYING from so-called 'AIDS', since all REAL STD infection rates have been rising every year for the past thirty years? Why aren't teenagers dropping dead from 'HIV' in their millions, since millions of them are infected with REAL STDs?

      Cue Slashdotters' brains imploding because they can't even begin to question the bullshit of the establishment position. How embarrassing. That's like just what the Illuminati and the aliens want you to believe, man.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
  2. Only one problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    This video was made by the US military 20 years ago when they were developing HIV.

    1. Re:Only one problem by Ucklak · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Half a million would still be dead if he weren't a homophobe.
      Blood transfusions aside, AIDS is still a preventable condition.

      --
      if you steal from one source, that is plagiarism, if you steal from many, well, that's just research.
    2. Re:Only one problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      No, his failure to address the AIDS crisis didn't give people the information that they needed to know that they were at risk. AIDS exploded because there was no campaign in effect that told people how they could protect themselves.

    3. Re:Only one problem by tylernt · · Score: 1, Troll

      No, his failure to address the AIDS crisis didn't give people the information that they needed to know that they were at risk. AIDS exploded because there was no campaign in effect that told people how they could protect themselves.
      Yeah, because people are far too stupid to realize that they can get diseases from having unprotected sex or sharing needles. Never would have figured that out on my own.
      --
      DRM 'manages access' in the same way that a prison 'manages freedom'
    4. Re:Only one problem by beckerist · · Score: 1, Troll

      Evolution at work. Wear a condom.

    5. Re:Only one problem by tsm_sf · · Score: 1

      You know what, kids? It didn't used to kill you. That's one for your generation.

      --
      Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
    6. Re:Only one problem by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not stupid, ignorant. Both ignorance and HIV are preventable, and the US government is chartered with the task of protecting their citizens. Instead of allowing equally ignorant religious right backers to make a lot of hay about the gay disease, Reagan should have done his job and used the resources of the US government to protect citizens through education.

      You moral values are fucked up. You fail to recognize that ignorance is deadly. You fail to recognize that education is a moral value that should be held in reverence. You fail to recognize that human beings should not be treated like political footballs.

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
    7. Re:Only one problem by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 1

      You're amusing.

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
    8. Re:Only one problem by WoggyMumma · · Score: 1

      I honestly think you wouldn't have.

    9. Re:Only one problem by Project2501a · · Score: 1

      you forgot to mention Hitler.

      --
      ----
    10. Re:Only one problem by El+Icaro · · Score: 1

      GP didn't mention conservatism. I don't see how teaching people about AIDS infringes on personal liberty (unless the government forcefully put condoms on your penis).

      I'm sure Reagan could have multitasked a bit more and paid attention to other issues. More than 25 million people have died of AIDS since 1981 (and that's those that are accounted for), far from what Stalin did, but still a pretty big number.

    11. Re:Only one problem by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      So you're saying the gays created AIDS? In league with the aliens and the Illuminati, obviously.
      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    12. Re:Only one problem by aproposofwhat · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Excuse me, mods, but how the fuck is this a troll?

      OK - there's the snidey 'Evolution at work' part, but the fact is that if you indulge in unprotected sex as part of a promiscuous sex life, you're odds-on to catch something sooner or later - doesn't matter whether you're straight, gay or into bestiality.

      Must be some Mac users modding this today~

      --
      One swallow does not a fellatrix make
    13. Re:Only one problem by aproposofwhat · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Which killed more AIDS or Communism?

      I'm sure I could hazard a guess as to the annual death rates caused by the two factors - as of 1997, it was estimated that Communism had caused 97 million deaths - so around 1 million per year on average.There's not much Communism around anymore, so we'll take 1 million per year as a reasonable figure.

      AIDS currently kills about 2.1 million people a year (as of 2007). If AIDS carries on for another 30 years, it will overtake Communism and then some.

      So who's the partisan hack now, fuckwit?

      --
      One swallow does not a fellatrix make
    14. Re:Only one problem by Thiez · · Score: 1

      Which killed more AIDS or Communism?

      Are you seriously suggesting one should, at any particular time, work only on solving the problem that happens, at that particular time, to be the biggest, ignoring all other problems until it is solved? You do realise that this approach is optimal only in a world where each problem takes the same amount of time to be solved, and problems don't get worse while you ignore them?

    15. Re:Only one problem by JDWTopGuy · · Score: 1

      He was responding to the GGP's sig:
      "Conservatism is a failed ideology which has joined communism in the trash heap of history."

      --
      Ron Paul 2012
  3. I remember by mfh · · Score: 5, Funny

    When they used to say that the time it took a Windows computer to go from the first boot time to an infected state was about five minutes.

    Coincidence?

    --
    The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
    1. Re:I remember by chunk08 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Coincidence?
      No. the US Military tested AIDS on Windows. Windows was designed to be an easily infectable host for experimentation, and was released to the public when the military decided that that would be the best way to spy on us.
      --
      Do away with our corrupt tax code. Support the Fair Tax
    2. Re:I remember by Stormwatch · · Score: 3, Insightful

      When they used to say that the time it took a Windows computer to go from the first boot time to an infected state was about five minutes. Coincidence?
      The real coincidence was that it's same amount of time you have to wait for everything in the background to finish loading to get a fully functioning machine.
      Your use of the words "fully functioning" is somewhat debatable...
    3. Re:I remember by kestasjk · · Score: 1

      When they used to say that the time it took a Windows computer to go from the first boot time to an infected state was about five minutes. Coincidence?
      The real coincidence was that it's same amount of time you have to wait for everything in the background to finish loading to get a fully functioning machine.
      Your use of the words "fully functioning" is somewhat debatable... blah blah Windows is bad blah blah..
      Wait isn't this an article on HIV? I guess it doesn't really matter..
      --
      // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
  4. How much longer until a cure? by TRAyres · · Score: 1

    Not to be premature, but if they are able to cure viruses, there is going to be a second sexual revolution. No condoms, ever again? HOORAY! Everyone throw your HATS IN THE AIR! (Jim-hats, that is). Then all we need is a safe version of the male 'pill', and everything is set, set, set!

    1. Re:How much longer until a cure? by spleen_blender · · Score: 4, Funny

      Well everyone except /.ers



      *cries*

    2. Re:How much longer until a cure? by Tablizer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not to be premature, but if they are able to cure viruses, there is going to be a second sexual revolution. No condoms, ever again? HOORAY!

      Not like this is gonna change things much for typical slashdot readers :-)

      Anyhow, many religious leaders believe that God sent HIV to punish promiscuity, and are not welcoming a cure.

    3. Re:How much longer until a cure? by urbanriot · · Score: 1

      I don't know about that... HIV isn't stopping the greater infected areas from having sex, and neither are other STD's in first world coutries.

    4. Re:How much longer until a cure? by jimicus · · Score: 2, Funny

      Imagine like, in some 8-10 thousands years, some religious leaders (of a denomination formed in our time) start preaching that an arbitrary STD is sent from God to punish those sinners for not using The Holly (sic) Condom! I imagine it's rather more likely that you'd get an STD using a holy condom.
  5. Heard by the technician: by razberry636 · · Score: 1

    Push, Honey! PUSH!

  6. Re:404? by pgn674 · · Score: 1

    I get the home page OK. On there is a link to where the video is: http://newswire.rockefeller.edu/?page=engine&id=763 That page loads too, with the following text where I assume the video would be: "Error! Unable to locate the News Relase you specified."

  7. Re:They already have a cure. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Nobody understands it because it doesn't make sense.
    The pharmaceutical companies (or any companies at that) don't care about the good of the industry in general, they only care about the maximization of their own profits. If one company discovers the HIV cure before the others, it is going to make sh&tloads of money, giving it a huge step ahead of the competition and allowing it to tap exclusively into a marketshare that it has up till now only shared.

  8. Resolution by Mortiss · · Score: 1

    While I applaud the work, I am not entirely convinced that this article is "Nature" worthy. True enough, it shows something that has not been directly observed before, but does it describe a phenomenon that is entirely novel? This data merely confirms what has been known about HIV assembly, while enabling to observe kinetics.

    Maybe, I am wrong, but I would like to see a bit more data in this article. I suspect this might be one of these cases of "publish this before anyone else does" and then follow with many derivative articles.

    1. Re:Resolution by BorgCopyeditor · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If I understand correctly, the kinetics could reveal a weak spot in the "life"-cycle of the virus, which could suggest new treatment options.

      --
      Shop as usual. And avoid panic buying.
    2. Re:Resolution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      The kinetics don't just reveal potential weak spots, they are a fingerprint of the very crucial and delicate assembly process.

      There are known antiviral drugs that can work by either inhibiting or even accelerating viral capsid assembly.

      To my knowledge, the best example of this is Hepatitis B. In addition to being a very real pathogen, it serves as something of a model system since the assembly is so well documented and controllable.

      If you cause the HBV capsid to assemble too rapidly, it forms aberrant sheets and tubes rather than spheres. Under other conditions, assembly can be blocked entirely. And in contrast to a previous posting which suggested that this is a "partial" cure, if you can disrupt assembly then you have as close to a cure as you'll ever find with a drug.

      The reason for this is simple: there is really nothing in the human body quite like a virus capsid - from a structural standpoint they are exceedingly foreign. Viruses share some characteristics with us such as the need for protein production, DNA or RNA synthesis, which means that targeting those pathways will always have some side-effects. But we have nothing like virus capsids (ignoring ferritins), and the interactions needed to build them are highly specific and sensitive: as a drug target they are ideal.

      If you're interested in the details of this kind of research, look up "heteroaryldihydropyrimidine".

  9. Did it have two dad's? by howardd21 · · Score: 1

    Look honey...it looks just like you!

    --
    no comment
  10. ID by Tablizer · · Score: 3, Funny

    I saw God's finger poke into the mix at 0:34.74sec of the video. I told you! ... hmmm, or maybe it was a noodly appendage.

    1. Re:ID by kubla2000 · · Score: 1

      I saw God's finger poke into the mix at 0:34.74sec of the video. I told you! ... hmmm, or maybe it was a noodly appendage.

          Are you sure that was his finger?
    2. Re:ID by glitch23 · · Score: 1

      I saw God's finger poke into the mix at 0:34.74sec of the video. I told you! ... hmmm, or maybe it was a noodly appendage.

      Although you aren't original for making an ID joke on slashdot you bring up a good point whether you like it or not. The point being that those particles are not alive and yet they are forming something that is. This totally beats anything biogenesis/evolution could do due to the speed at which it occurs. That same something started somewhere in the world many decades ago for some reason out of the blue, possibly even outside of a living organsim which then somehow got inside of an animal or human. Now millions of people are infected and thousands die from it every year. Why? How? Something just doesn't do that out of the blue. What is directing those particles to do what they do and how do they make HIV come alive as an organism? Bringing this same "magic" to the macro level with another example: How do some birds find an island (Hawaii) in the middle of an ocean when they have never been there before? Saying it is just instinct doesn't explain it. It makes me wonder. It should make you as well.

      --
      this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
    3. Re:ID by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Viruses aren't living organisms any more than chain letters are. They're merely DNA- or RNA-encoded "copy me" instructions which are compatible with the processes that makes living cells function. We don't quite know where they come from, though some seem to be leftover transcription errors (from cells attempting to copy their own DNA) or bacteria whose DNA turned out to be more effective when hijacking other cells than running its own. Argument from personal incredulity aside, there's no fixed limit on the rate at which viruses (or cells) may mutate. Some changes are merely less likely than others, so it takes more time for them to become inevitable. And looking back we see there have been potential cases in the late 1950s--could it have happened earlier and we just didn't figure it out until now?

    4. Re:ID by glitch23 · · Score: 1

      Ah, you can't explain it, so it must be god. You've convinced me. When does jebus bless me with his holy seed?

      My point was not to convince you God did it but to not assume that biogenesis and evolution did it. As far as being blessed, that will only happen when you stop being a sarcastic asshole.

      --
      this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
  11. It's an ugly baby... by mrbluze · · Score: 2, Funny

    But nonetheless custom dictates that we ought to all stand around and politely congratulate the parents.

    --
    Do it yourself, because no one else will do it yourself. [beta blockade 10-17 Feb]
  12. so we can see it... by urbanrealtor · · Score: 1

    Intriguing that we can view so small a thing yet not have much in the way of controlling or manipulating it the way we would like to. Also, pretty fascinating for something that is not alive.

  13. Amazing by Dan+East · · Score: 3, Funny

    That's pretty amazing, especially considering the video is less than 15 seconds long.

    --
    Better known as 318230.
    1. Re:Amazing by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      That's pretty amazing, especially considering the video is less than 15 seconds long.

      Not when it's slashdotted.

  14. I know next to nothing about this by geek · · Score: 1

    So could someone explain how this effects us? How is this a major leap as the article says? Watching it be born seems cool and all but how does that help us kill it?

    1. Re:I know next to nothing about this by Eric52902 · · Score: 1

      Now we can train nano-sharks with fricken' laser beams attached to their heads to recognize the birth taking place and inject them into people's blood stream to immunize them against HIV!

    2. Re:I know next to nothing about this by mikael · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Before, researchers didn't know how long it took for the AIDS virus (or any virus) to assemble itself from the different amino-acids required to make the genes, and the proteins required to make the outer casing. It could have been hours, minutes or milliseconds. Now, they know it takes several minutes.

      A cure would involve kill cells that have the virus inside. Detecting and killing such cells is one step to finding a cure, but probably impossible. Finding drugs which inhibit the virus entering cells, reaching the DNA, or leaving the cells are all partial cures.

      Development of antibodies which attach and kill cells with the virus particles partially formed on the surface of the cell is the next most likely achievement. To achieve this, they now know that they need something which can completely enclose the surface of a cell within 5-6 minutes.

      Also, they now have a new technique to visualise the behavior of virus particles in a cell. They can watch to see how any potential treatments interact with the virus within the cell in real-time.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    3. Re:I know next to nothing about this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      It doesn't "effect" us, our parents did that.

    4. Re:I know next to nothing about this by geek · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the explanation. That makes a lot of sense.

    5. Re:I know next to nothing about this by ikkonoishi · · Score: 3, Funny

      Perhaps tiny little sharks with fricken lasers.

    6. Re:I know next to nothing about this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      dunno why you got modded as a troll

      I thought it was fricken funny!

      But then most here are too dense to understand the difference between effect and affect, then and than, your and you're etc etc.....

    7. Re:I know next to nothing about this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      They already exist and they are called macrophages. They don't have lasers, but they can shoot a a chlorine burst that will do the same thing. Too bad they are stupid. Without the helper T cells giving them directions, them and their weaker neutrophil cousins are fairly inept. They can fight some bacteria, but they generally ignore viruses.

    8. Re:I know next to nothing about this by nbauman · · Score: 1

      So could someone explain how this effects us? How is this a major leap as the article says? Watching it be born seems cool and all but how does that help us kill it? Good question actually. Let me try an answer.
      If we know the steps that HIV uses to assemble its virus particles, we can look for a way to jam up one of those steps.
      This video (and the research behind it) helps us understand how HIV assembles its virus particles. It helps researchers figure out a way to jam up the works.
      Researchers have already figured out how to jam up the works in some of the other steps in HIV processes. As a result, HIV used to kill people after about 6 years. Now they can go on for decades.
      Of course, the main reason they do it is because it's cool. Scientists who do things just because it's cool have probably saved more lives than scientists who do things because they're trying to save lives.
      As an added benefit, they better understand how the cell works. Once they understand how the cell works, it's easier to do other cool things like give cancer patients another 10 or 20 years. And 20 more years looks pretty good when you're 65 years old.
  15. It's a trap! by LoverOfJoy · · Score: 2, Funny

    You may have fooled me once but I won't be rickrolled again!

  16. Re:They already have a cure. by BiggerIsBetter · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Well, they do spend more on marketing than they do actual research...

    --
    Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
  17. Ah, paranoia. How cute by Moraelin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Dude, let's put it like this:

    Any company which discovers a cure gets a monopoly (patent) on it for 20 years. Which is a lot.

    Now picture having this choice:

    A. You get the existing anti-virals which tend to do a lot of damage. (There's a reason you don't get them for a cold or even a flu: they do more damage than the flu.) And they might or might not work. In fact, you'll probably just buy you some time. And everyone makes them, so while there's some money milking potential in the "but mine work better" factor, you're still just getting a slice of the pie.

    B. You get the miracle cure from Company X, which actually works and presumably with a lot less side effects.

    Choice B is a no-brainer. The company which would get a 20 year monopoly on B, is going to sit on a freaking huge fortune at the end of those 20 years. Not only they'd get the lion's share of the existing pie, they'd get a whole merry bunch of retards who'd rather buy the cure later than use a condom. Again.

    So basically, you're telling me that a whole lot of CEOs, doctors, their investors, etc:

    1. Would rather work for the general benefit of their competitors in preserving a status quo, instead of making a metric buttload of money for themselves.

    2. A lot of rich and powerful people, and some of those same CEOs, doctors, etc, would rather die themselves or watch friends and family die a slow death, than just use that supposed miracle cure.

    3. Thousands to millions of underlings, who otherwise can't seem to keep much else secret, just toe the line on this one. And again, would rather be loyal to some cartel than save themselves or their friends and family in some cases. And all the retards who lose laptops, or get internal corporate networks virused, etc, lose everything _except_ this apparently. They lose customer files, they leak that their network has blank admin passwords, etc, but somehow they never manage to leak _that_.

    4. Somehow the Chinese, Russians, and a fucking buttload of other governments just itching for a pretext to one-up the West, and thumb their nose at the West, also toe that line peacefully. And, you know, all the retards like those in South Africa and various other countries, peddling sweet potato juice and other local snake oil as cures for HIV and as a substitute for paying to the big pharma for a cure, don't just go ahead and and make that miracle cure.

    Remember: if it's secret, then it's also not patented. Patents tell everyone that it exists, so they don't work well for a conspiracy.

    Etc, etc, etc.

    And the same goes for diabetes, cancer, and all the other poster cases used by such conspiracy theories. In fact, for a lot of them half the points above go double. (E.g., insulin is out of patent, and it's a commodity produced by everyone, so profit margins are tiny. Plus you have local factories which don't pay big pharma a cent. So patenting a cure would make a lot of people very very rich. E.g., cancer doesn't really have as easy a defense as using a condom, and as other diseases go down and life expectancy rises, so does the chance that you'll live enough to get a cancer. So that one requires literally believing that the millions of doctors, researchers, pharma bigwigs, etc, would rather die of it and do something as brutal as radiotherapy or chemotherapy, instead of using the miracle cure. Etc.)

    So here's an idea: noone understands that conspiracy theory, because it's fucking stupid even as conspiracy theories usually go. It doesn't require even just delusions and or building whole rationales on silly suppositions instead of facts. It requires genuine inability to follow even elementary logic.

    --
    A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
    1. Re:Ah, paranoia. How cute by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      I worked for a VC that funded biotech and pharma startups. A big question was always market size and recurring revenues for the drug, as many have pointed out, a cure is one-and-done, a treatment keeps on producing revenue.

      It's not that anyone is actively squelching a cure for AIDS, diabetes, etc. It's just that the research into a cure is not being funded the same way research into treatments are. You don't miss what you've never seen and that's the shame of the capitalist pharma program.

      This isn't to say cures never get funded - new anti-biotics are constantly being researched and these are cures. Again, there is the recurring revenue aspect.

    2. Re:Ah, paranoia. How cute by Glyphn · · Score: 1

      I do not see this (the decision to invest in most profitable areas) as a shame of capitalist pharma R&D. The simple fact is that we as a society benefit from the cures and therapies they do invest in. If there are diseases and conditions that we as a society care about but that are not profitable to invest in, then we can publicly fund them, either by incentivizing for-profit organizations or by funding those activities elsewhere. Expecting investors to, in essence, voluntarily tax themselves at a higher rate by spending their money on non-profitable R&D would only encourage them to invest elsewhere.

    3. Re:Ah, paranoia. How cute by LeafOnTheWind · · Score: 1

      The thing is, that's not how antibiotics or antiviral medication usually work. A cure is simply a successful treatment. The other thing that you forget is that there are a lot of genuinely good people working at this for the good of humanity. My father and a number of his colleagues in academia started a company which works on both cancer drugs and cancer detection and they have have made considerable progress and have multiple patents. I know Slashdot gets its kicks from being blindly cynical, but the truth is that academia plays a huge roll in medical development and curing cancer is a big prize (and raise) for any researcher.

    4. Re:Ah, paranoia. How cute by the_raptor · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Except treatments like insulin have virtually no profits. Big Pharma would probably stop producing those kinds of low margin non-patent drugs if they could get away with it. The money is in patented drugs, and while a patented treatment makes more money, a patented cure is worth more then an non-patented treatment.

      A cure for HIV etc would be a license to print money, because as the GP said, people are fucking retards and would rather pay for an STD cure then use protection. I have heard various sources say this is happening now because some people believe AIDS is treatable with current medicine (it is treatable the same way as amputation was a treatment for infection a hundred years ago).

      --

      ========
      CINC, 4th Penguin Legion
    5. Re:Ah, paranoia. How cute by Eivind · · Score: 1

      Indeed, Cure B is a complete and utter no-brainer -- even if cure A costs $10K/year and cure B costs $100K.

    6. Re:Ah, paranoia. How cute by Jedi+Alec · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So basically, you're telling me that a whole lot of CEOs, doctors, their investors, etc:

      Don't forget some of them would go down in history as "the guys that cured AIDS". That's hardly a bad legacy to attach to one's family name...

      --

      People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
    7. Re:Ah, paranoia. How cute by kestasjk · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but I heard that the guy who created the miracle cure was killed in 9/11, while trying to get it patented. They have files on it in the Pentagon that could disprove this theory but they haven't released them.

      --
      // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
  18. Not quite accurate? by Fastolfe · · Score: 1

    The article and video show individual HIV particles emerging from a cell. There isn't any imaging of "hundreds of thousands of molecules coming together" to form the particles. Or am I missing something?

    1. Re:Not quite accurate? by Mortiss · · Score: 1

      Well, that is in fact what is happening. (This has been shown by other studies). Aggregation of ~5000 Gag proteins leads to HIV virion budding. However due to the resolution limits of the light microscope (at least the setup used here), this is not seen.

  19. Re:They already have a cure. by SocratesJedi · · Score: 1

    Well, they do spend more on marketing than they do actual research... I've noticed that this is often brought up when discussing drug companies. I'm never quite sure what to make of it. The often efficient properties of capitalism notwithstanding, isn't the need to deploy money into advertising an inefficient aspect of a competitive economic system rather than some evil aspect of Big Pharma?

    Perhaps I simply don't see a more elegant solution, but it seems that in order to eliminate the need for marketing in drug development competition would need to be eliminated (perhaps by the creation of some national or international regulatory authority?), but I haven't often heard people suggesting that be done. Thoughts?
  20. Re:404? by FiReaNGeL · · Score: 1

    Thats why I linked directly to their front page, its weird, they screwed up something

  21. Re:They already have a cure. by 11223 · · Score: 1

    I can refute it. Everyone who is working for a profit motive is a selfish evil bastard who wants the gays and the druggies to get what's coming to them. Everyone working for a non-profit is doing it out of a selfless desire to do good and improve the world, even if it means they eliminate the condition for their employment. Duh.

  22. Re:They already have a cure. by westlake · · Score: 1
    Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.

    the wolf brings to the table his warrior's instincts, his brains and his training. the sheep remains a sheep no matter how well armed.

  23. Re:They already have a cure. by ElectricRook · · Score: 2, Informative
    the wolf brings to the table his warrior's instincts, his brains and his training. the sheep remains a sheep no matter how well armed.

    Owning sheep, I'd like to clarify...

    Sheep will try to defend themselves, but they lack the ability to form an alliance with other sheep or prey animals... Sheep will try to attack once or twice. The only tool they have is ramming. And adult male sheep (Rams) do in fact kill lots of humans every year.

    Most canine predators have the ability to form alliances for the common good, and they have really good predator teeth.

    Sheep lack teeth for attacking, and they have an attitude of "give-up, roll over & die". You see this when you vaccinate. The vaccinated lambs take a few steps, roll over and wait for death. After about 5 minutes, they realize that death has passed them by, they get up and seek out mom for a drink. I can't see the evolutionary advantage in this strategy, we might have bred it into them.

    --
    - High Tech workers, please say NO to Union Carpenters, their Union sees fit to control our compensation.
  24. Video is currently available at... by dpbsmith · · Score: 5, Informative

    NewswiseScience News.

    (The link from the Rockefeller University main page is currently broken).

    1. Re:Video is currently available at... by ckedge · · Score: 1

      Quicktime? Fuck that. Please try again.

    2. Re:Video is currently available at... by Chris+Brewer · · Score: 1

      Beware that this video (as opposed to the one linked in the article) requires the QuickTime plugin.

      --
      Consultancy: If you're not part of the solution, there's money to be made in prolonging the problem
  25. Particle? by PingPongBoy · · Score: 1

    I thought particles are for the most part pieces of matter, regardable as uniform in structure. I do not work with viruses--are individual viruses referred to as particles?

    There is something about the theory of fractal similarity at different scales--HIV gathering on a cell resembles flies assembling on dead meat.

    The video caption is "individual HIV particles (white spots) assembling on the surface of an infected cell" but the article is titled "single HIV particle". That's fishy.

    --
    Know your pads. One time pad: good for cryptography. Two timing pad: where to take your mistress.
    1. Re:Particle? by bh_doc · · Score: 1

      "Dust particles" aren't single atoms of dust. The definition you're thinking of applies moreso to the physical sciences than any other setting. Whereas here, it seems to be used to mean a very tiny clump of something.

  26. Re:They already have a cure. by MadnessASAP · · Score: 1

    Are you SURE that's the reason you pick a female doctor?

    --
    I may agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to face the consequences of saying it.
  27. Interesting... by My-Random-Thoughts · · Score: 1

    That is interesting. What a scary form of birth...

  28. Re:They already have a cure. by inflamed · · Score: 1

    When you refer to drug companies, what aspect of them do you think of that you can personnify with the characteristic of "liking things?" The people I know in pharmaceutical research (me included) are a cynical bunch who dearly hope to invest their lives in helping other people live happier lives.

  29. Re:Where's the Video? by Fumus · · Score: 1

    Enable javascript.

  30. Re:404? by WillCodeForRaisins · · Score: 1

    Yep. Me, too. Mirror anyone?

  31. Re:They already have a cure. by brock+bitumen · · Score: 1

    The evolutionary advantage of a herd animal, being common prey, to roll over & die is in protecting the rest of the herd. They bred it into themselves, not us, ie. evolution. You see this in the elderly herd too, they will wander away, or on the outside of the pack in a way to allow themselves as the sacrifice so the predator gang will take them and leave the strong, the females, and the young

  32. Re:They already have a cure. by c_forq · · Score: 1

    I can't see the evolutionary advantage in this strategy, we might have bred it into them. I have heard it explained before that it evolved as it allowed a group of sheep to prosper in areas with predators (one sheep would give up, the predators would take the easy kill, and the rest would live another day). I have also heard that "falling sheep" (can't think of the real name for them at this moment) were bred as a way to protect other animals (farmers would keep the "falling sheep" in the herds of other animals so predators would go after the easy prey instead of the more valuable animals).
    --
    Computers allow humans to make mistakes at the fastest speeds known, with the possible exception of tequila and handguns
  33. That's still a misunderstanding by Moraelin · · Score: 1
    Dude, VCs funded companies for as little prospect of revenue as dumping the shares after they spike. That was the dot-com bubble. Banks in the USA have given loans to buy a house to people who _can't_ pay it back, so they'd get the house after the prices rise some more, and sell it to the next dolt. Or the same VCs fund some little patent troll who might -- or might not -- get a few million for his overly broad and vague claims from someone in the future, but I'm supposed to believe they wouldn't find someone with a patent that has a market the size of AIDS. Etc.

    So you're telling me that none of that would fund someone with a patent that gives them near-monopoly on treating AIDS, for _20_ years?

    This isn't to say cures never get funded - new anti-biotics are constantly being researched and these are cures. Again, there is the recurring revenue aspect.


    I see you've supplied your own proof against the conspiracy theory. Cures _are_ being researched, and there _is_ a recurring revenue in those.

    The recurring revenue aspect, which you mention is this: that people keep getting the disease again, or new people get it. It's not like there's a shortage of new people getting STDs, or cancer, or whatever.

    It's also missing the aspect of how big that revenue is. Selling a patented cure is where the big money is. If you milked everyone with diabetes of, say, 1000$ profit for a patented cure, it beats treating a little slice of that market with insulin (because everyone produces it, not only you) at cents profit per shot (because the free market did drive the prices down, as it's supposed to.)

    So, anyway, I guess I'm somehow supposed to believe that what applies to anti-biotics (kills bacteria) and anti-fungals (kills fungi), somehow doesn't apply to anti-virals (you guessed what it kills.) That there's a perfectly good financial incentive to fund finding a cure for some bacterial infection that would likely (though not always) go away on its own, but somehow not in curing a viral infection that kills. Something doesn't add up in that conspiracy.
    --
    A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
  34. Re:The real question is by Oktober+Sunset · · Score: 1

    Middle. He was flipping off all the scientists.

  35. Re:They already have a cure. by Thiez · · Score: 1

    You mean fainting goats. Fainting goats freeze for about 5-10 seconds when you scare them. Since goats were cheaper than sheep, people who had many sheep would get a few fainting goats. Then, when the herd was attacked by predators, the sheep would easily get away faster than the goats (which would simply fall down, remember, I dont't need to outrun the lion, I just need to outrun _you_), so the predators would eat the goat and leave the sheep.

    Is there any chance you've seen this on QI, the source of all useless knowledge? :)

  36. Re:Where's the Video? by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1
    Clicking the videoframe in their homepage gives:

    Error!
    Unable to locate the News Relase you specified.
    --

    --
    make install -not war

  37. Re:Where's the Video? by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

    Moderation -1
        100% Troll

    You TrollMods are colossal idiots.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  38. The best care is being ignored by kobidog · · Score: 1

    Aids is an autoimmune disease and upper cervical specific doctors have helped to balance the bodies of these people to reverse the effects and symptom of this so called disease. The full body chiropractors and mixers are the ones to blame for peoples disillusionment .go to the web site wwwupcspine.com and you will learn a lot!