Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Gene Therapy Approach 'Completely' Protects Mice From HIV Infection

Posted by Soulskill on from the earning-their-cheese dept.

Pierre Bezukhov writes "Scientists from the California Institute of Technology have come up with a gene therapy approach that has proven effective in protecting mice (with humanized immune systems) against HIV infections. They used a genetically altered virus to infect muscles cells and deliver DNA codes of potent antibodies isolated from the blood of human HIV victims (abstract). The muscle cells then began to manufacture the antibodies in quantities that proved 'completely protective' against HIV infection. By contrast, traditional vaccines have not worked against HIV, as scientists have failed to find a molecule that induces the immune system to produce enough potent antibodies. The difficulties stem from the fact that HIV disguises some of its external structures from the antibodies."

3 of 190 comments (clear)

  1. Gay Mice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    Remember AIDS = Anally Injected Death Sentence.

    It's as if nature doesn't think being a queer is equal to being straight. Oh you PC types will just love that. Have fun you faggots!

    1. Re:Gay Mice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      Fun fact - nature isn't CONSCIOUS.

      Speculatively, for us to contemplate whether Nature is conscious is a bit like one of your cells in your body wondering (in whatever form, probably not language) if it's part of something conscious. It is, but the nature of that consciousness is probably not something a single cell could understand. For that cell, it effectively doesn't exist even though the rest of us can plainly see you walking and talking. That cell might as well focus on its day-to-day metabolic activity and forget the question that it probably couldn't formulate and couldn't answer, but that does not make the question invalid. For the cell, the answer is "yes, you are". For us, we don't know.

      Those who actually understand scientific skepticism would have to say "we don't know/not enough data to draw a conclusion". They'd then move on to put their attention elsewhere into things that can be falsified.

      Those who are smarmy and like to hear themselves talk especially when it's to tell someone else "you're wrong" would tend to say "it definitely isn't and I have no burden of proof" even though that is in fact a claim. Face it, you misunderstand positivism.

      Honestly, you're an arrogant little shit who chose a ranting foaming-at-the-mouth "god hates fags" type of AC to respond to because you want to take an easy cheap shot at a target no one will sympathize with. Same reason you slam religious people, it's trendy to hate on them even though many of them keep their personal beliefs quite separate from their scientific studies and business careers. I know people like you. You're very brave behind a keyboard when you expect no real opposition. You're a complete pussy every other time, when you stand a real risk of failure/rejection/being wrong. Enjoy your few minutes of pleasure, I suppose.

  2. Trouble is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    "as scientists have failed to find a molecule that induces the immune system to produce enough potent antibodies"

    scientists have failed to find proof that AIDS is actually caused by HIV