Slashdot Mirror
Researchers Zero In On Protein That Destroys HIV
Julie188 writes with this excerpt from a Loyola University news release:
"Using a $225,000 microscope, researchers have identified the key components of a protein called TRIM5a that destroys HIV in rhesus monkeys. The finding could lead to new TRIM5a-based treatments that would knock out HIV in humans, said senior researcher Edward M. Campbell, PhD, of Loyola University Health System."
"Hey everybody! We're all gonna get laid!"
"I just saved a bunch of money on child support by switching to condoms!"
Living With a Nerd
This is exciting but it looks like it has a ways to go before it is a viable treatment for humans.
"Maybe this world is another planet's hell"
Aldous Huxley
Sounds like promising research, but I'm confused by why the cost of the microscope is prominently displayed in both the press release and TFS. Is $225,000 considered cheap or expensive for a microscope these days?
I wish they'd tell us the hair colour of the researchers too since it's probably just as relevant to the article.
As a biologist, I have no idea why they're making such a big deal of it being a $225,000 deconvolution microscope. It's cheap compared with what most institutions have. Besides which is the fact that the microscope used isn't interesting. Any high(ish) resolution fluorescent microscope would have given you the same data. The interesting part is this TRIM5a. Let's see what happens with recombinant TRIM5a in animal studies.
If I had a nickel for every condom that broke on me, I could buy myself another pack of Condoms.
Wearing protection, while it helps, is not the best way to go about staying uninfected.
And no I'm not saying that Abstinence is the right choice either, I think I'd probably go insane. But you can, you know, develop relationships with people before sleeping with them, so theres that level of trust where you'll inform each other of any STD's or STI's. THATS the best way to stay clean while being sexually active.
I wear one because I don't want any unwanted pregnancies. Before you jump in with "Isn't she on the pill?" - Yes, she is. Theres 2 reasons for that, one being that there are always those rare cases where the pill isn't 100% effective. The other reason being that it shouldn't be entirely her responsibility. If the odds were one in 1000 while on either the pill or using condoms, both of us doing our part makes it a 1 in a million chance instead.
I've worn a condom every time I've had a blood transfusion, and I've never gotten HIV.
"Using a big-ass microscope, researchers have..."
No sig today...
Even forming relationships to trust someone isn't foolproof. They could be an STD carrier and still not tell you. Or they may not even know themselves.
Once HIV is curable, people will find out the hard way that they never did come up with a cure for Herpes.
And yet, no insurer offers contraceptive-failure insurance (presumably for those who have been surgically sterilized: 1/600-1/2000 failure rate for men, and 1/300 for women), nor is a contract to abort in the event of contraceptive failure legally enforceable.
Further, a man can be assessed child support for a child provably not his, and jailed if he does not pay. (Google "legal father" sometime, and the lack of proper service of process to allow disputing paternity within statutory limits). I suppose this is unconstitutional, but mounting a constitutional challenge is likely beyond the financial means of many caught in this trap.
Finally, there is the case of a minor in Florida, seduced by an adult woman, who subsequently became pregnant. Florida law forbids a minor being ordered to pay child support to an adult, but as soon as he turned 18, he was hit with a a $50,000 arrears tab, and ordered to pay or go to jail.
Abstinence, and the general avoiding of women of unknown character, is the only defense a man has if he does not want to father a child or be required to financially support one.
In Liberty, Rene
Duh, what did you expect? A trojan horse is when the big present comes in, and all the little guys come out inside the base! Seems like a no-brainer that I wouldn't trust something like that with wrapping my schlong
If patriotism is racist, is racism patriotic?
We're one step closer to the day I can go find the freakiest, dirtiest, most disease-laden slut and hire her to do nasty, nasty things... and simply go for a single shot afterwards.
I'm turning 40, though, so they'd better get on with it. If my emails are to be believed, I have only another thirty or forty years until pills no longer facilitate my erections.
Even if you can kill the HIV virus, you still wouldn't have a cure.
HIV is a retrovirus. It becomes part of the infected cell's genome. Any agent that kills the virus can suppress symptoms/disease but not cure people who are already infected.
P.S. Please take off your tin-foil hat. The glare is quite annoying.
the anti-bacterial resistant gonorrhea
HPV
herpes
Hepatitis C
The last being the worst of them - but if a cure for AIDS is found, i'm sure HVC is right behind it - IIRC, they already use interferon and have a 50/50 success rate to put patients in remission (although the treatment is basically chemotherapy... so makes you feel like poop)
You're right: We should burn down the FDA so that the wise and beneficient pharmaceutical companies can immediately cure all our diseases with their well-tested, totally safe, and 100% effective drugs that are never mis-marketed for the sake of profit.
Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
Are you actually implying that it would be better without the FDA? Think about what the FDA actually lets through (think Fen-phen and the likes)... this is shit that was clearly dangerous but the drug companies just wanted their money, and the FDA still passed it. While their methods are obviously broken to some degree, imagine no FDA. We'd go back to the 1900's where they sell snake oil for all sorts of problems with no organization to even test or approve it... it just gets thrown on the shelves. Which would you rather have?
"When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
Not really, because "child support" includes statutory support requirements based on "earning ability" AS WELL AS discretionary expenses for the child's "special" needs, often determined by a "best interests" standard applied by the court to include state-provided psychologists, psychiatrists, and any number of professionals you now have to pay. In other words, the "child support" ordered can be unbounded, and exceed any ability you have to pay, resulting in your incarceration for not paying it.
So, if you can put up a credible fight, you should, particularly if you are not the biological or adoptive parent of the child.
If you are, of course, you should support your progeny to a reasonable degree. Often the amount of support ordered is unreasonable, and reflects the greatest income ever earned, rather than modern economic realities.
In Liberty, Rene
You read a LOT of Ayn Rand when you were a young, lonely and impressionable teenager, didn't you?
Guaranteed! This comment 100% Anthrax free!
In other words, caring for someone, no matter how briefly, has its consequences. Nothing new there.
No, the specific instances are a woman gets pregnant, has a child, and seeks welfare. She names a man who has never met the child or supported the woman or ever had sex with her as the father, as required by many states to get welfare, so the state can go after the father for child support to reimburse the welfare provided. She provides an address for this man. A letter is sent there giving him a limited time to disprove paternity. Problem is, it's not his address. The usual service of process is not followed, and he is clueless as to the claim until the statute of limitations expires to contest it. He finds out when his wages start to be garnished by the state. Then, it is too late.
Google "paternity fraid".
In one instance, a man was ordered to pay child support for a child that didn't even exist.
In Liberty, Rene
The problem stems from welfare being a federal program administered by the states. To continue to provide welfare funds to a state, the state must identify a certain percentage of absent fathers. This is so that welfare can be recovered from child support obligations. So, state legislation is passed defining the notion of a "legal father".
The usual assumption is that this is either a biological father, a legally adopting father, or a man that has publicly acted as a father figure to the child. But, the truth is more sinister: to catch the requisite number of "fathers", the laws are very lax on the process of service requirements: often the mother just has to provide an address, and paperwork is sent there. The man is usually clueless as to the claim, and his (statutorily short) window of opportunity to dispute it until it is too late. He finds out only when his wages are garnished.
In Liberty, Rene
Wanting a bunch of virgins is something only a virgin would want.
Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
That depends on what you call a "cure". You probably carry hundreds of nearly dormant viruses around that your body can never get rid of. Yet, you wouldn't consider yourself "ill".
If they can introduce TRIM5a into human cells and get it expressed, people would end up not needing drugs, not being infectious, and not having any symptoms. That's about as "cured" as you are of many other viral diseases.