Slashdot Mirror
Gene Therapy Approach 'Completely' Protects Mice From HIV Infection
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."
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!
is it wrong i read such a serious article.... (and wanted to post FIRST!)
Billions and Billions of dollars spent looking for a cure or vaccine for AIDS so that people can go around fucking random strangers in the ass without protection and without having to worry.
How do you conduct a proper trial for HIV? "Here, this is either a drug that will work, won't work, or a placebo which works a surprising amount of time. At best you have a 50/50 shot of getting HIV" Who is going to participate in that trial?
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
I wanna see some peer-review output. I hope I'm wrong, but this sounds too good to be true, like cold fusion or the like.
Maybe, though, I'm just getting skeptical in my old age...
But still, I hope I'm wrong.
You have the right to remain silent. If you don't, anything you say will be misquoted and used against you.
Was to inject concentrated cash puree directly into the body.
"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
The article expresses a concern that once the gene therapy is started it can't be turned off if the person has an allergic reaction to the antibodies. Maybe somebody more informed can explain why:
1) You couldn't test for an allergic reaction in advance of the gene therapy.
2) You couldn't just do more gene therapy to turn off your original gene therapy.
Lets face it, there once was a big scare about aids and then it dropped off to the point that a lot of people believe the weirdest things and fuck around and with no protection.
It isn't just AIDS, there are a lot of STD's and some of them are way easier to catch then AIDS and have a devestating impact on women especially as it makes them infertile.
It is good news that a vaccine MIGHT someday work on humans but in the meantime, it doesn't hurt to be a bit more careful. Just because one day they might make perfect safe cars, you don't skip putting on your helmet when you go drive a motor cycle in heavy traffic and icing conditions right? No. Unlike you... I am not a fool. (Yes, I am aware of the irony, that is the point really)
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
You are thinking about proving it works. This won't be tested at first. What will be tested at first on humans whether the innoculation itself doesn't kill you. After that it is a matter of simple statistics. As long as the shot doesn't kill you, the rest don't matter. Simple record the patients success at not getting HIV versus non-innoculated patients.
They are NOT going to shoot up humans with AIDS just for a test. Well. Not officially anyway. This is the medical industry after all. Nazi's would gag.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
This experiment will probably not produce an actual human drug, as it suffers from the same drawback as most previous gene-therapy studies: the Adenovirus transduction system will kill a significant number of patients. However, the results do seem to indicate that a monoclonal antibody has protective effects. The gene therapy vaccine may not work, but you could inject purified antibody into someone who had a known exposure, or is going to be in a high-risk situation, and prevent infection. Unfortunately, these types of therapies will never be able to cure an established infection, as HIV integrates its genome into host T-cells.
And there are already much better ways to prevent getting infected with HIV.
Maybe this is a silly, minor thing, but it bothers me these sort of blurbs always just talk about faceless "scientists." Does it really take that much work to find out who the principal researchers were? Maybe more people would be inspired to get into science if it actually seemed to come with some measure of face rather than anonymity in a lab coat.
Though a week plus old, still apt.
http://engineering.tamu.edu/news/2011/11/21/research-finds-hiv-killing-compound/
Here's to hoping this kind of research, and discovery, leads to some truely ground-breaking implementations.
... and none of you idiots here have a CLUE about what you claim to be talking about.
What is HTLV3? Do you know?
Try reading this:
http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/abnvp.htm
If a sexually transmitted virus causes death within ten years, why aren't millions of 30 year old Americans dying right now? STDs are at an all time high. How come the so-called 'latency' period went from six months (back when 'AIDS' was first discovered) to essentially A LIFETIME?
None of you are even slightly interested in alternative hypotheses, even though the 'official' hypothesis has failed miserably to predict the spread (or lack thereof) of AIDS...
Damn, you seem to be a smart mother fucker.
I'm curious though. In your example, you kill the gene therapy with antibiotics, like a permanent off switch.
Would it be possible to create gene therapy that is only active in the presence of some external chemical? Forgive my bad example, but could you make it so the gene therapy only activates in the presence of, say, aspirin? That way, after the gene therapy nothing happens, but once you begin an aspirin regimen it would activate, and if there was some allergic reaction you could just stop taking aspirin. Aspirin may be a bad choice for a variety of reasons, but any chemical not normally present in the human body should work, as long as it gets into all the cells...right?
:(){
I too think this should be ranked higher.
"Man is nothing without the works of man" -- Helvetius
It's not about whether you deserve to die or not. It's about whether billions of dollars should be spent looking for a cure for a disease who's cause is well known and easily prevented. Don't go sticking things where the don't belong. That includes someone's ass or your neighbor's pussy. It's too bad that you preferred sexual activity of choice carries such a high rick of infection. But frankly, it's not my problem any more than some wino drinking himself to death is my problem.
You bitch and moan about moral codes, but ignore that fact that the rules embodied in those codes make a hell of a lot of sense.
Then you crow about your sexual success...so fucking a bunch of skanks and behaving like a dog is success? No Thanks...although Charlie Sheen would be proud of you no doubt.
Have you read the U.S. Constitution code? People usually call it a document, just like DNA codes are usually called genes and software codes [sic] are usually called programs.
Now I can have unprotected sex with mice and not worry about getting AIDS
"Well, the premise is quite simple - um, take something designed by nature and reprogram it to make it work for the body rather than against it."
How'd that work out for the Fresh Prince?
I was talking about the global AIDS pandemic when I said:
"Most people [ie not just Americans] who get AIDS today are young heterosexual females"
So it doesn't matter what CDC estimates for HIV in the US because that is only one place on the globe. For the full information read the UNAIDS 2011 World AIDS Day Fact Sheet
The proportion of women living with HIV has remained stable at 50% globally, women are more affected in sub-Saharan Africa (59% of all people living with HIV).
Also, more than 10% of those infected with AIDS in 2010 were children who got the disease from their mother. Are you going to blame those children for their loose morals and homosexual adventures?