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."

Comments

How to conduct human trials

[scorp1us]

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?

Re:How to conduct human trials

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe HIV trials are usually conducted using volunteers that knowingly engage in high-risk behaviours (needle drugs, anonymous sex/prostitution etc) and the effectiveness is inferred statistically.

Re:How to conduct human trials

[Pierre Bezukhov]

actually, it's immunization. i don't know if it works on existing patients

Re:How to conduct human trials

[Riceballsan]

Nah, we just have to find blind corners of human civilization that nobody cares about. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guatemala_syphilis_experiment , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_syphilis_experiment

To do this in todays times... Guantanamo anyone?

Re:How to conduct human trials

[scamper_22]

You'll never get a proper scientific trial. There are whole areas of medicine we only know because evil regimes like the Nazi Germany conducted experiments without care.

But you can certainly make a best effort. Inject 1000 random people with either drug, placebo...

They do whatever they do. They can engage in risky behavior. They can wear condoms. Whatever is. As an experiment, you just assume their behavior is randomly distributed among the 1000 people.

At the end of the trial, you call them back and see what percentage has AIDS/HIV.
If all those who received the drug don't have it, and SOME of the ones without it did have HIV/AIDS, then you can say there is a high probability the drug works.

As I said, statistically you just have to assume that behaviors were distributed evenly among the 1000 person sample.

If no one comes back with HIV/AIDS... by some miracle that 1000 person trial... everyone suddenly behaves nicely and stops having unprotected sex, no one gets raped... well then the experiment is a failure, but at least 1000 people are not living a good life... so it's a human success.

Re:How to conduct human trials

[Jason Levine]

There have already been trials. You give the treatment to one group of at-risk individuals and a placebo to another group. You make sure that they understand that they aren't to rely on this as a cure/certain protection. Then you follow them over the years and see what the infection rate is. If 30% of the control group is infected with HIV at the end and only 5% of the treatment group is infected, you've got a good result. If they are both about the same, your treatment doesn't work.

Re:How to conduct human trials

[betterunixthanunix]

sed -e 's/HIV/small pox/g'

This would not be the first time we developed a vaccine against a deadly disease.

Re:How to conduct human trials

[Anonymous Coward]

As I understand it, the way to do a trial with this is to try it in an area where AIDS infection/transmission is common. For instance, test it on a group of prostitutes who don't have AIDS. When you come back a few years later, you check to see if any of your group have acquired the disease, and how their infection rate compares to others in their cohort.
 
Also, it's not uncommon to consent to acquiring a disease in the name of research (though they're not typically the lethal variety). I have a couple friends who work at Walter Reed designing malaria vaccines. If they ever feel like taking a couple weeks off, they consent to testing out one of the vaccines (which almost never work). They temporarily get malaria out of the deal, but they also get some time away from work, a few thousand dollars, and some free medical care.

Re:How to conduct human trials

[ceoyoyo]

You take a bunch of people who belong to a known group with a known average risk. Preferably high risk, because then you need fewer subjects. You give half the the treatment (it's not really a vaccine) and half the placebo. Then you followup and compare the infection rate in the treatment group with that of the placebo group and the known average infection rate.

But in this case they're using mice.

Re:How to conduct human trials

[G3ckoG33k]

"There are whole areas of medicine we only know because evil regimes like the Nazi Germany conducted experiments without care."

Tragically that includes the US Government, three years _after_ it had beaten the evil Nazis:

"President Obama this afternoon spoke with Guatemalan President Alvaro Colom to “express his deep regret” and “extend an apology to all those infected” following the revelation that the U.S. Public Health Service conducted a study from 1946 to 1948 in which near 700 prisoners, soldiers and patients with emotional and mental problems were purposefully infected with syphilis. The study also was sponsored by the National Institutes of Health, a forerunner of the Pan American Health Organization, and the Guatemalan government."

From http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2010/10/president-obama-apologizes-to-guatemalan-president-for-shocking-tragic-reprehensible-syphilis-study/

So much for high horses...

Re:How to conduct human trials

[TheRaven64]

The smallpox vaccine was tested by intentionally exposing people to smallpox. The medical profession tends to frown on that kind of thing these days.

Re:How to conduct human trials

[moderatorrater]

700 people infected with syphilis versus 1500 pairs of twins killed by Dr. Mengele alone. While they're both evil, not all evils are equal. I think he's justified in keeping his high horse.

Re:How to conduct human trials

[cpricejones]

Sometimes, the trials are conducted with people who are currently on HAART (anti-HIV therapy). Their HAART regimens are ended, and the new regimen is given to them. My understanding is that the HIV-infected community is very very understanding--they know that the only chance for a real solution is to volunteer.

An alternative scenario is to conduct the trial in a high risk population, such as sex workers or people living in sub-Saharan Africa. If you treat enough people, there will be a portion who become HIV-positive during the trial, and you can compare the control/test groups. If the drug is really working well, the study will be halted prematurely because it's unethical not to give the control group the treatment (also an incentive for someone to volunteer themselves when they don't know what they are getting, placebo or test).

Re:How to conduct human trials

[elsurexiste]

Scientific method, when people's behaviors are involved, has always been a touchy subject. There's a whole set of problems that you have to take into account, e.g. self-fulfilling prophecies and the Pigmalion Effect.

Re:How to conduct human trials

[scamper_22]

yes. Especially what extreme cold/heat does to the human body.

Re:How to conduct human trials

[internetdarwin]

In those cases, and someone correct me if I'm wrong here, you don't actually go around infecting people to see if it worked. You give a large sample population the drug/placebo then follow them over time. If you have enough people, statistically speaking someone is bound to contract HIV. So you just compare the % of people that contracted HIV over time that had the drug vs the people who had the placebo. These types of trials take a long time.

Re:How to conduct human trials

[cayenne8]

I believe HIV trials are usually conducted using volunteers that knowingly engage in high-risk behaviours

So, the trials for this are going down in San Francisco?

Re:How to conduct human trials

[the biologist]

Really, like what? Most of the items cited known from studies of accidental exposure cases and animal studies.

The Nazis were just pricks who assumed humans to be a special creation from animals, thus didn't think the animal research was relevant. Given the main intent of their research was to kill Jews, it is not surprising their 'studies' involved killing Jews.

It was studies of accident victims in Russia and studies in dogs which revealed why it is a person dies from the cold. Certain transmembrane ion transporters begin to fail at cold temperatures, producing a severe ionic imbalance in the blood, which then interferes with nervous conduction within the heart... resulting in death due to cardiac disfunction. When you pump the blood full of chelation agents, to correct the resulting ionic imbalance, you get mammals continuing to live at much colder temperatures than is otherwise possible.

These results are now being used to develop hypothermia treatments to restart the heart and oxygen distribution while the body is still cold. What did the Nazis give us? Oh yeah, when freezing to death, your eyes will roll up in your head...

Re:How to conduct human trials

[sorak]

There have already been trials. You give the treatment to one group of at-risk individuals and a placebo to another group. You make sure that they understand that they aren't to rely on this as a cure/certain protection. Then you follow them over the years and see what the infection rate is. If 30% of the control group is infected with HIV at the end and only 5% of the treatment group is infected, you've got a good result. If they are both about the same, your treatment doesn't work.

Isn't it also acceptable under some circumstances to give one group the experimental treatment and to give another an existing treatment, and to measure how this experimental treatment works compared to existing alternatives?

Re:How to conduct human trials

[G3ckoG33k]

That is a very strange remark.

Re:How to conduct human trials

[semiotec]

which is why there are methods such as double-blind tests and placebos.

Re:How to conduct human trials

[HiThere]

I don't think this could be called a vaccine. It's intent is not to stimulate the immune system, but rather to supplement it. And the cells generating the supplementation are muscle cells.

Re:How to conduct human trials

[elsurexiste]

As GGP said, just saying it's a test on HIV will definitely alter the results: they'll make people more cautious or promiscuous, blasting the test to hell. A double-blind test, and placebos, can't work in this scenario.

The only way to accurately test this is with a Mengele-style test (with the techniques you mentioned), with actual HIV injection on real humans. This is because we still have trouble finding reliable animal models for HIV infections.

Re:How to conduct human trials

[Fned]

It would be, but in this case there IS no existing treatment.

We have ways to stop people who have HIV from dying, but not a lot of ways to stop them from contracting HIV (aside from the obvious, of course).

Re:How to conduct human trials

[semiotec]

Basic experiment design:

1) start large group of test subjects

2) randomly divide into two groups, one will receive placebo and the other the vaccine candidate

3) [double-blind] but you don't tell test subjects which they are receiving, nor the people administering the vaccines

4) let everybody carrying on as they have before. In a large group, whatever non-standard behaviour will be distributed more or less evenly across the two groups

5) wait a while

6) see which group has fewer cases of infection and whether the differences are statistically significant

Re:How to conduct human trials

[Belial6]

I am betting that letting the drug slip to Africa would lead to human testing that didn't create much more uproar than what is already happening there.

Re:How to conduct human trials

[elsurexiste]

4) let everybody carrying on as they have before. In a large group, whatever non-standard behaviour will be distributed more or less evenly across the two groups

Those are your a prioris. The whole point I and scamper_22 are trying to convey: you must assume that non-standard behavior will be evenly distributed. And... why would you? Karl Popper has already worked on this issue: you can't expect people to carry on as before. If I say to you "I'm going to inject you something that may or may not protect you from HIV", I have tainted your behavior and can't expect you to act as you have before: maybe you'll be more aware and cautious, maybe you'll think you have a greater probability of not getting infected and be more promiscuous. To expect these behaviors to even out is fallacious: the bank's self-fulfilling prophecy (any SFP, as a matter of fact) is a nice counterexample. The only proper way to do this is by excluding human behavior somehow... which evokes coercion, uninformed decision, and unethical human experimentation.

Re:How to conduct human trials

[robotkid]

Nah, we just have to find blind corners of human civilization that nobody cares about. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guatemala_syphilis_experiment , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_syphilis_experiment

To do this in todays times... Guantanamo anyone?

Not too off the mark. Prior trials on HIV prevention have been done on high risk populations in Thailand and Botswana. And these are studies sponsored by the CDC, not a rogue evil scientist as with the Guatemala experiments (whom, it should be noted, had absolutely no oversight even though he was using US tax dollars as these checks weren't required back then).

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/prep/resources/factsheets/pdf/prep.pdf

Overseas trials do bring up a whole host of ethical concerns (especially when dealing with populations that have little or no access to healthcare - making participation in a trial perhaps the only way to see a real doctor). This is a real issue because usually the control population gets "standard of care" which is very different in the US vs the developing world. What's even shadier is that there have been allegations of drug companies secretly hiring shady doctors in the third world to enroll patients in highly risky studies that would never be approved in the US, and the patients often don't even know they were in an experimental study, they thought they were getting a proven treatment.

At least, with the CDC trials, one can be assured that the participants are actually volunteers who gave explicit consent and had the risks explained to them (unlike those Guatemalan prisoners who had no choice), that the trial protocol passed review by external ethics boards both in the US and by the local governmental authority (again, unlike Guatemala where outside of a few prison officials the local gov't had no idea what was going on). Not that these are fool-proof checks in countries with unstable or nonexistent public health infrastructures and highly corrupt officials, but at least it's something.

Re:How to conduct human trials

[Anonymous Coward]

700 people infected with syphilis versus 1500 pairs of twins killed by Dr. Mengele alone. While they're both evil, not all evils are equal. I think he's justified in keeping his high horse.

That is the kind of reasoning that small children uses.
"Somebody else did that that thing so I should also be allowed to do that too!"
As a part of normal parenting you don't let the children get away with it.

The entire argument can pretty much be summed up to "At least I'm not worst."
Not only is this an admission to having knowingly done bad stuff, it also implies that the only thing holding the child back from doing worse is that it haven't found anyone else to point at yet.

Re:How to conduct human trials

[Xrikcus]

Why would you not expect all of the participants to (statistically speaking) modify their behaviour in the same way? If the people who get the real anti-HIV drug modify, and the people who get the placebo modify then the chances are good that the modifications will be evenly spread with a large enough sample pool. If, given the modified behaviour, the HIV drug performs with statistically meaningful results then you have a positive result from the study.

Re:How to conduct human trials

[Martin Blank]

Both the Nazis and Japanese used prisoner populations to undertake medical studies, and not just for sake of cruel curiosity. The Nazis are known to have subjected prisoners to both heat and cold experiments. These were done to provide data on survivability for soldiers, and the cold studies were especially important to them because German armed forces faced harsh mountain conditions and the very real possibility of having to survive in the North Sea or the Atlantic if their ship was sunk or their plane was shot down. They also conducted drug trials (recent studies have suggested that thalidomide may actually have been developed this way) and tested surgical techniques. Their prisoners included Jews, but also included homosexuals, gypsies, the mentally retarded, and other undesirables, as well as some prisoners of war. They used twin studies and randomized trials to validate data. As cruel, immoral, and unethical as they may have been, they kept excellent records and wrote detailed papers. This not only helped to convict many of them, but also provided data to the medical industry, the ethics of which use has been debated since they were first uncovered.

The Japanese did similar work using the populace of conquered nations, convicted criminals, and prisoners of war. They are known to have undertaken wound studies by tying human prisoners to posts at varying points around a munition (shell, grenade, mine, etc.) and exploding it, then observing the wound patterns and shrapnel damage on the subjects. Similar experiment were used to test new weapons or ammunition. They also performed experiments with chemical and biological agents in part to determine efficacy of the agents but also to test defenses against them. Other biological agent experiments were used to breed the agents; subjects were then infested with fleas which were collected to be spread over populations or their bodily fluids were used to contaminate supplies in order to spread the disease. Many of those who participated and survived the war, including the entirety of Unit 731, were given immunity in exchange for sharing their work exclusively with the United States. In this way, they were treated much as the US treated German rocket scientists who had used slave labor (though there's a significant difference between using slave labor and condemning people to death through medical torture).

Both conducted experiments including vivisection (with and without anesthesia), organ removal, infection and decay, amputation, hyper- and hypobaric conditions, and water and food deprivation. I'm sure that to call it horrific would not begin to describe it, as many of those who discovered the sites developed PTSD from their experiences viewing the aftermaths. There were also those, such as Josef Mengele, who professed to work in the name of science but by all accounts were simply there for curiosity and torture. But others believed (or rationalized) that their work was crucial and, under wartime conditions, ethically permissible.

Re:How to conduct human trials

[lexsird]

History they say is wrote by the victors. Would morality be as well? What if they won? They would be known scientists of their day, held with high esteem?

What lesson can be learned from this, if any?

Re:How to conduct human trials

[retchdog]

You're right, and as a matter of fact, these studies often involve an intervention to educate the subjects in risk avoidance, &c. That is to say, they intentionally seek to modify the behavior of the group (which is, of course, done "blind": without regard to case/control status).

There are two reasons for this: first, it provides a moral figleaf; since everyone nominally benefits at least slightly from participating, the sense of dooming the placebo group is mitigated since, strictly speaking, they are still on average better off than if they had not participated. It defends against the criticism that someone in the placebo group may tell themselves that they MIGHT have the active drug, and thus be more promiscuous.

Second, for technical reasons, a lower overall rate is more efficient for hypothesis testing, though I doubt that this is very significant.

Re:How to conduct human trials

[the biologist]

Thank you for the informative reply. Most times I just encounter knee-jerk responses that don't hold up.

Re:How to conduct human trials

[Martin Blank]

You're welcome. I came across the ethical issues surrounding the use of the data sometime in the late 1980s and have been somewhat fascinated with the implications since then. Do you deem it tainted due to the torture and reject its use, thus removing the reward for others to follow the same path? Or do you use it in spite of the torture and perhaps give some meaning to what the subjects were forced to experience? We seem to have followed a middle path, accepting the data from the era where it was properly documented but deeming all similar follow-up work to be ethically invalid and therefore useless to modern science. I don't know that there's a better path to follow.

Can't Wait For The Peer Review

[DRBivens]

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.

Re:Can't Wait For The Peer Review

[HBI]

The thought that occurred to me was: if your muscle cells have had a coding sequence for an antibody injected into them, aren't they now engaging in effort that has nothing to do with their primary function? Wouldn't that impact things in old age? Wouldn't that increase the likelihood of heart problems, perhaps?

Then, one might think: why would you want to produce a boatload of HIV antibodies after your years of promiscuous sexual activity are over? Very few of us continue with that behavior ad infinitum.

Re:Can't Wait For The Peer Review

[betterunixthanunix]

Why would it be too good to be true? We now have decades of research on HIV, large amounts of funding for HIV research, and a very real and widely accepted public need. At one time, people would have said that the current treatments for HIV infection sounded too good to be true as well.

Re:Can't Wait For The Peer Review

[theshowmecanuck]

Are you saying the goatse guy could lose (but maybe loose applies here) tonality in his ass muscles?

Re:Can't Wait For The Peer Review

[betterunixthanunix]

why would you want to produce a boatload of HIV antibodies after your years of promiscuous sexual activity are over?

Older people have sex too, and they are not strictly monogamous. HIV infections can also be dormant for long periods time, so a person who was promiscuous 10 years ago may find themselves presenting symptoms of HIV infection.

Re:Can't Wait For The Peer Review

[Anonymous Coward]

Creating antibodies is a secondary function of every cell for normal, health people. This isn't something completely outside their normal function, even if it is outside their 'obvious' function (primary isn't a terrible word for it, but I think it puts a bit too much emphasis).

Re:Can't Wait For The Peer Review

[cpricejones]

So the goal of the adenovirus is to introduce the broadly neutralizing antibody into T cell lines. These are the immune cells that are going to be ultimately fighting HIV infection, but they lack the right antibodies. In the normal situation, your body raises antibodies, but they cannot bind to the right spot on the virus envelope. Instead, they bind to a spot that the virus naturally varies, and the virus escapes via mutation (i.e., mutated virus replicates, other virus doesn't). In the new situation, the adenovirus provides an antibody that is better, which binds a spot on Env that the virus needs (so virus with mutation at this spot replicate poorly).

So muscle and heart cells are likely not getting the vector, nor would they be expressing antibodies. Similarly, your body wont continue to raise the antibody if the infection is gone (it will not be ad infinitum).

This is my understanding ... perhaps others could add key points.

Re:Can't Wait For The Peer Review

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Um, this was published in Nature, which is a peer-reviewed journal.

Re:Can't Wait For The Peer Review

[Vellmont]

Sounds like a lot of speculation based on a minimal amount of information. The less you know, the more you can make up. Rest assured, nobody is going to be injected with this stuff until we know more about it.

Re:Can't Wait For The Peer Review

[HBI]

Well, isn't that kind of speculation kind of why we bother even discussing such things? Uninformed speculation helps one wrap the mind around new data. Peer-selected random speculation also sharpens up your speculation when you are somehow drawn into a conversation about a topic.

Re:Can't Wait For The Peer Review

[DRBivens]

Why would it be too good to be true? We now have decades of research on HIV, large amounts of funding for HIV research, and a very real and widely accepted public need. At one time, people would have said that the current treatments for HIV infection sounded too good to be true as well.

Like I said (twice, in fact), "I hope I'm wrong."

Once again, as clearly as I can say it: HIV is a scourge on humanity and I hope this truly is a breakthrough that will cure/prevent HIV AIDS.

That being said, I've become skeptical from seeing too much overhyped research news; I won't start dancing for joy just yet.

But remember, "I hope I'm wrong."

Re:Billions

[GameboyRMH]

Reminds me of this short story I read the other day:

http://eidolon.net/?story=The%20Moral%20Virologist

Re:Billions

[mathmathrevolution]

Are you from 1982?

Most people who get AIDS today are young heterosexual females. They are not "fucking random strangers in the ass without protection."

AIDS is a disease that any sexually active person can get, even if they use protection. I don't sleep around a lot, but I have sex and unprotected oral sex. Why do you think my partners and I deserve to die? Because we are violating your personal moral code? Or because you are driven by resentment of your more sexually successful peers?

Re:Billions

[DRBivens]

Yeah? How about those who caught it from a blood transfusion? Or the people who made the mistake of sharing a syringe? Or those who were infected during plain, ol' heterosexual sex?

Sure, doing IV drugs is stupid, but it doesn't rise to a level deserving a death sentence.

Besides, if being stupid was a punishable by death, you wouldn't have been here to write what you did.

Ignorant moron.

Turning off Gene Therapy?

[mathmathrevolution]

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.

Re:Turning off Gene Therapy?

[Anonymous Coward]

1: Allergic reactions tend to develop over time. You may not be allergic at first, but as a result of constant exposure, you may become so over time. Antibodies are small and soluble enough that this isn't usually a problem, but with a non-self fC region, they can be. We've seen this occasionally with the purification tags used in many common biotherapeutics; if your immune system begins to recognize the tag (his-6 is common) from one therapeutic, any other biologic with the same tag will cause an allergic reaction. Note: this doesn't normally occur with antibody-based therapeutics since they can be efficiently purified without being tagged.
 
2: The thing about turning it off is that the off switch has to be hit in the same cells that are producing it; i.e. millions of separate sites. More gene therapy is unlikely to hit *all* of the same cells, and will potentially cause some unintended consequences in non-target cells. The solution is to use a molecular switch. If I were designing it, I'd flank the antibody promoter region and the transcription start site with loxP recognition sequences. Add a cre recombinase gene under the direction of an antibiotic-activated promoter. Basically this would allow you to reverse at least a portion of the gene therapy at will. Take an antibiotic and the affected cells would actually cut out the antibody producing region they introduced. Unfortunately, if you wanted to again have protection, you'd have to undergo the gene therapy again. You could do a similar setup using siRNA under a controlled promoter, but this scheme also has its drawbacks (repression of the transgene therapeutic would only be temporary - which could be better or worse depending on your goals). Anyway, whichever scheme you use will have to be introduced in conjunction with the original treatment; adding it afterwards won't work nearly as well due to the difficulty in getting the treatment to all of the affected cells.

Re:Turning off Gene Therapy?

[PSandusky]

Someone who is more into biotech could probably do better than I could with this, but here goes...

1) You could. The problem is that the person wouldn't necessarily have been previously exposed to the antibody that would cause the reaction. Sensitization is a lot more likely once your body's been in contact with the stuff for a while. If someone had some sensitivity to the antibodies[1] before gene therapy even began, it's entirely possible that they've got bigger problems in front of them than getting vaccinated against HIV, and I have to ask why they're in this trial/program. (The sensitivity also could've cropped up a lot earlier than this procedure in such a case, to boot.)

2) Not necessarily a good idea at this stage of research and understanding. If gene therapy consists of pasting a gene somewhere into a chromosome, you've got to define (as best you can) where you're going to do the pasting, just so you can get your material (of variable length, depending on what you're trying to do) incorporated. Wherever it ends up and however you can narrow that down, you hope it works. Going in and messing with all of that to get rid of or change what you did in the first place is a little bit like blindfolding someone, spinning them three times, then holding them over a patient to make a surgical incision, leaving them blindfolded, spinning them three times again, and expecting them to both find and suture the original incision. Granted, there are markers and other means of identifying where genes are, but I don't think we're near the point that "turn off the original gene therapy" is considered any better than something way, way easier said than done.

[1] Antibodies are generally like screwdrivers with interchangeable bits. The handle and shaft don't change much, so a sensitivity to them seems very unlikely. As for the bits themselves? Hard to say. I don't know enough immunology to say one way or the other, but I'd think that the antibody itself wouldn't tend to be treated like an antigen. Of course, it probably depends quite a bit on the antibody in question.

No... they are taking it in the ass

[SmallFurryCreature]

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)

Re:No... they are taking it in the ass

[CubicleView]

I'm sure I'm missing something here since you mention there's irony floating about, but I don't quite follow why you feel justified in insinuating that the parent poster is a fool. In explicitly stating that protection was not used for oral sex, the implication is that is used for a modest amount of sleeping around. Is it the sleeping around or the lack of protection during oral sex that you consider foolish? Excluding chocolate flavoured condoms, I’m not sure why anyone would be interested in protected oral sex anyway. Also while I’m no expert on AIDS and peoples perception of it, your initial comment

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.

seems to be just your experience of the phenomenon. I’m sure the practise is widespread, but I personally don’t know anyone would has unprotected sex outside of a long term relationship.

Re:No... they are taking it in the ass

[Anonymous Coward]

With Oral sex the risk of contracting AIDS is low. It's other STDs like Syphilis (curable if diagnosed early enough), genital warts (no cure), Herpes (no cure), etc. that should warrant some kind of protection. With herpes the person doesn't even need to show signs of being infected to spread it. Most wont kill you but getting outbreaks around the mouth would be very unsightly.

Re:No... they are taking it in the ass

[sunderland56]

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

Worst. Analogy. Ever. What does car safety have to do with motorbike helmets??

Re:No... they are taking it in the ass

[lifejunkie]

Even though they may have cured AIDS (car) there are still other STDs to worry about (motorcycle).

Re:No... they are taking it in the ass

[CubicleView]

All very true, but my point is that I do not believe that consenting adults who are aware of the risks would have to be fools to have unprotected oral sex. Sadly I haven’t conducted much research on this myself, having only gotten my hands dirty one or twice, but I don’t see that it would be nearly as much fun with a condom, and I’ve no idea how lesbians would have protected oral sex. So it’s not really the same as riding a bike with or without a helmet, it’s more like whether or not you bother taking the bike out at all.

Re:No... they are taking it in the ass

[Confusador]

Sadly I haven’t conducted much research on this myself, having only gotten my hands dirty one or twice, but I don’t see that it would be nearly as much fun with a condom, and I’ve no idea how lesbians would have protected oral sex.

Are you fucking kidding me? I'm an abstinence promoter who's never "gotten my hands dirty", and I can tell you about dental dams, which are (or at least should be) just as useful to heterosexual couples as lesbians. Hell, I'm even willing to undo moderation on this story to get the information out, since it's apparently not as common sense as I thought.

Re:No... they are taking it in the ass

[CubicleView]

Yes actually I was kidding about the dirty hands bit.
Good for you, I'm not.
Dental dams are not commonplace in Ireland, I've never seen them for sale anywhere, I don't recall ever seeing one on TV either. They sound lovely.

Re:Gay Mice

[HBI]

Or it could have something to do with the methodology of intercourse for lesbians. Not so much anal tearing going on there, for instance.

Re:Trouble is

[DRBivens]

"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

{{citation needed}}

Easy

[SmallFurryCreature]

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.

Promising, but...

[FlavaFlavivirus]

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.

Re:Promising, but...

[FlavaFlavivirus]

Ahem: "used a genetically altered adenovirus to infect muscle cells and deliver DNA that codes for antibodies isolated from the blood of people infected with HIV." -From the article

Re:Trouble is

[Anonymous Coward]

google "peter duesberg" (and/or kary mullis)

Re:Trouble is

[whereissue]

A river crossing is not "caused" by a bridge. A bridge has long been identified as the preferred method of crossing a river, though... Do you need proof of that, too?

Re:Billions

[gyaku_zuki]

Jeez - and here I thought Slashdot to be a haven from this sort of nonsense. Seriously, you and your fellow 'Anonymous Coward's should have your human license revoked.

Re:Gay Mice

[gyaku_zuki]

I love how you decided to keep this comment anonymous. 'It's as if' you are scared to actually back up your opinion. Seriously, in the 'playground' version of being a fag, you are the biggest one I've seen.

Gravity - 'It's as if nature doesn't think' humans should fly, but we do (planes).

Fun fact - nature isn't CONSCIOUS. It doesn't really give a crap what you think or do. Nature didn't wake up one day and think 'hey, I think I hate queers today!'. Unless you're religious, then of course why I even waste my breath is beyond me.

Gene therapy is a preventive measure

[Hentes]

And there are already much better ways to prevent getting infected with HIV.

Re:Gene therapy is a preventive measure

[betterunixthanunix]

Unfortunately, the best ways to prevent HIV infection are not within the realm of what can reasonably be expected. People tend to have sex, to not be monogamous, and prefer not to discuss previous sexual partners. Condoms are highly effective but not perfect, and condoms substantially reduce the pleasure men feel while having sex (and I even know some women who do not like the feeling of a condom).

The reality is that a vaccine or cure for HIV is needed in order for the disease to be eradicated. There is no other way to solve this problem. You will never be able to convince millions (let alone billions) people to be monogamous and to wait until marriage.

Re:Gene therapy is a preventive measure

[Hentes]

Now even if we only discuss the practical side of the problem, I would say convincing millions is still more plausible then treating said millions with ridiculosly expensive gene therapy every few years.

Re:Gene therapy is a preventive measure

[DeadCatX2]

condoms substantially reduce the pleasure men feel while having sex (and I even know some women who do not like the feeling of a condom).

I never understood why so many people believe this. Sex is so much more than "penis in vagina"; there's a lot more to kiss, touch, grope, and caress. With a condom it's like 90% as good as without a condom. 90% of awesome is still pretty awesome.

Re:Gene therapy is a preventive measure

[betterunixthanunix]

I never understood why so many people believe this.

Perhaps you lack points of comparison? Perhaps you just have different preferences? Perhaps you use some super-awesome brand of condoms (if so, I am going to demand that you tell me which)?

For me, wearing a condom during sex is like putting seran wrap on my tongue while I am eating.

Re:Gene therapy is a preventive measure

[Em Adespoton]

Added to this: in Africa, a significant portion of children are born with HIV. How are they supposed to prevent getting infected? How about people who got it via blood transfusions? HIV is much more than just a STD.

Re:Gene therapy is a preventive measure

[DeadCatX2]

Don't get me wrong, I have a long-term monogamous partner and we never use condoms anymore, so I always get that last 10% of enjoyment. Sex is without a doubt better when there is no condom. But if I wasn't long-term and monogamous, I would rather lose 10% of the pleasure to ensure that I don't get a disease.

That said, my point was that there is so much focus on "penis in vagina" that it seems like that's all there is to sex, for some people. To me, penis in vagina is about maybe 30% of sex (hence, the condom reduces raw sexual pleasure by a third). The other 70% involves other body parts and different acts and even the clothes that she's wearing and role playing and bondage and sex toys and so on.

Re:Gene therapy is a preventive measure

[Hentes]

Added to this: in Africa, a significant portion of children are born with HIV. How are they supposed to prevent getting infected?

And a preventive gene therapy wouldn't be of much use in this case.

Re:Gene therapy is a preventive measure

[Martin Blank]

When it's given to the infected mothers, it could make a significant difference.

Re:Gene therapy is a preventive measure

[Martin Blank]

In some countries, that is more plausible. But in Asia and Africa, where the growth of AIDS is much more prevalent and distrust of drug companies even higher than it is in some Western countries, it's proven to be nearly impossible. There's even a widespread belief in Africa that having sex with a virgin will cure a man of AIDS. This results in a great deal of rape, and when a man is not cured, he often believes that the woman (or very often the young girl) that he raped was not a true virgin and goes looking for one who is. This leads to even greater spread of HIV and often results in an infected child. Witch doctors also tell infected people that they will be cured if they kill or rape an albino.

It doesn't help that idiots in power like Thabo Mbeki (whose AIDS denialism led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands) and Jacob Zuma (who publicly claimed in a rape trial that he showered after sexual activities with an HIV-positive woman to reduce the chances of infection) spread misinformation. Aside from Mbeki's policy to stop or limit access to antiretroviral drugs (which he claimed caused AIDS) to South Africans, his message led others to voluntarily stop taking their drugs. Similar issues are hampering treatments of all kinds of diseases in parts of Nigeria where clerics are claiming that vaccinations and other treatments are tools of genocide by white people trying to reclaim African colonies.

A combination of medical methods (including drugs and perhaps gene therapy and a vaccine, should either ever pan out) and education will be needed to end the spread of AIDS.

Re:Gene therapy is a preventive measure

[retchdog]

kimono brand is noticeably better than the standards, but of course nowhere near unwrapped. they're usually underneath the major brands and kind of hard to notice (shelf placement is auctioned).

Re:Billions

[L4t3r4lu5]

There's only one sure-fire way to be sure you won't contract HIV / AIDS sexually: Be spectacular in bed.

If you are a a Gold Medal-winning bedroom gymnast, your partner will never need to sleep around for satisfaction! Everyone's a winner.

Re:Billions

[ravenshrike]

[Citation needed]

Moreover, if most is raw numbers than divide by about 20 to get equivalent per capita numbers.

"Scientists from Caltech"?

[Christianson]

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.

Re:"Scientists from Caltech"?

[Anarchduke]

The scientists at Caltech don't have faces. They were all destroyed in a series of horrifying Bunsen burner accidents.

Re:Gay Mice

[jdgeorge]

... then of course why I even waste my breath is beyond me.

I'm guessing that the Slashdot post isn't a big breath-user, but your fingers probably need the exercise, anyway.

In any case, your post made me smile, so I think it was worthwhile.

Re:Gay Mice

[Taty'sEyes]

Or it could be that God loves lesbians...

Re:Billions

[goose-incarnated]

I read that too, I also wrote one.

Re:Billions

[omnichad]

I believe you don't realize that there's two very similar words in use in American vs. British English.

http://www3.telus.net/eddyelmer/Tools/BritDict.htm

Re:Gay Mice

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear moron,

Have you considered that semen injected into the vagina, and especially the anus is a good disease vector, and saliva rubbed around the vulva, or vaginal juices in the mouth is a rather poor disease vector?

Sincerely,

The non man-hating population of the world.

Re:Billions

[EW87]

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.

Babies who get HIV from breast milk are appalled at you sir, appalled. Infants. Appalled.

MOD PARENT UP

[DeadCatX2]

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?

Re:MOD PARENT UP

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks.
 
    Yes, it's possible to design a gene that will only be transcribed in the presence of a certain chemical. The term we typically use is "induced" genes. These are similar to the siRNA example in that they're typically a temporary switch. A permanent on switch is also possible, but is more complicated to set up (easy way would be to use the cre/loxP scheme and cutting out a repressing element rather than a promoting one). I'm more familiar with prokaryotic (bacterial) expression systems than I am mammalian ones, but many of the same principles apply. Theoretically, you could use a pretty wide variety of chemicals, but we only typically use a handful of well-characterized systems. The most common one I use is the lac operon from E.coli, which can be turned on using either lactose (temporary) or IPTG (permanent). Arabinose is another commonly used inducing agent. Induction systems vary a lot in how well the expression can be modulated, and how leaky the expression is at basal levels. Analogs to these also exist in eukaryotic systems but I'm not familiar with many off the top of my head.

Re:MOD PARENT UP

[fahrbot-bot]

Damn, you seem to be a smart mother fucker.

Just for future thought, "smart" and "educated" are not the same nor always co-located.

Re:Gay Mice

[ArsenneLupin]

Or: Always thoroughly clean the double-ended dildo after usage.
Or: never swap sides on the double-ended dildo...

Re:Gay Mice

[jamstar7]

Who DOESN'T like lesbians? On film, anyways...

Re:Trouble is

[nedlohs]

It can't be cited other than by checking every single scientific study in all of history and seeing that nonw of them proof that ADIS is caused by HIV.

it can be trivially disproved by showing the proof of course.

For that we basically have Koch's Postulates.

1. The germ must be found in every host with the disease
There have been cases of of AIDS like symptoms without HIV:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8093633

They are very rare though, and just because something that isn't influenza can cause flu like symptoms doesn't mean influenza doesn't cause the flu.

Essentially everyone with AIDS tests positive for HIV, and >99% of people without AIDS test negative for HIV.

2. The germ must be isolated from the host and grown in pure culture
This is done routinely .

3. The germ must cause the disease when introduced into a susceptible healthy host.
4. The germ must be re-isolated from the infected host

Ethics prevent us from doing these steps for things we think will kill you.

However, there have been a few lab accidents in which workers have been infected with HIV (cultured HIV, not just say blood from an AIDS patient getting into their bloodstream, which would carry more than just HIV). All of them showed T-cell depletion. And HIV was then isolated from them and matched the one they had been infected with exactly.

http://gateway.nlm.nih.gov/MeetingAbstracts/ma?f=102203749.html

Plus the dozens of health care workers who have contracted AIDS from mistakes with HIV+ blood/etc - clearly not as good as isolated HIV infection for showing it is HIV, but more volume.

MOD PARENT UP

[Syncerus]

I too think this should be ranked higher.

Re:Oh internets.

[cayenne8]

Hmm.....

It would be sweet if AIDS were no longer a threat.

They day they announce the cure.....I'm guessing if you can't get laid that day...you're never gonna get laid.

Re:Gay Mice

[sunderland56]

This is *great* news for gay mice. Ever try to put on one of those tiny little condoms without tearing it with your claws?

Re:Billions

[mathmathrevolution]

I'm much rather they stop putting things where they don't belong

Are you literally suggesting that a vagina is an inappropriate place to put a penis? I'm guessing your mommy never gave you "the talk".

Re:Billions

[jpmorgan]

That is factually wrong.

Gay and bisexual men remain the population most heavily affected by HIV in the United States. CDC estimates MSM represent approximately 2% of the US population, but accounted for more than 50% of all new HIV infections annually from 2006 to 2009 –56% in 2006 (27,000), 58% in 2007 (32,300), 56% in 2008 (26,900) and 61% (29,300) in 2009.

Source

Re:Gay Mice

[Anarchduke]

gay men?

This is a huge relief

[Brooklynoid]

Now I can have unprotected sex with mice and not worry about getting AIDS

Re:This is a huge relief

[Hentes]

These weren't normal mice, but ones with altered "human-like" immune system. Normal mice can't even catch HIV, so don't worry.

Re:Billions

[dkleinsc]

... in the United States.

That's where you go wrong: compared to southern Africa, where about 1 out of every 5 adults currently infected, the 50,000 per year in the US is almost negligible. And in that population, about 60% of all adults with HIV are women and girls.

source.

Re:Billions

[mathmathrevolution]

1) Most people getting infected with AIDS aren't in the United States. They are in Africa and other underdeveloped regions.

2) AIDS prevalence is not the same as the infection rate. The total AIDS prevalence is high among gay men for historical reasons. But young heterosexual women are now the most at risk demographic.

Re:No About You

[mathmathrevolution]

I'm a 30 year old man who has had several girlfriends and has been serially monogamous. My question is: How much sex are you having that you consider this entirely modest amount of sexual activity "fucking a bunch of skanks and behaving like a dog."? Probably none, which is why you are lashing out.

Re:Billions

[Anonymous Coward]

You pay your taxes and then it is no longer 'your money', asshole.

Re:Gay Mice

[MyLongNickName]

Your post is anonymous as well...

Re:Gay Mice

[Anonymous Coward]

I love how you decided to keep this comment anonymous. 'It's as if' you are scared to actually back up your opinion.

Posting anonymously does not imply fear.

The AC you replied to is an idiot, but that's unrelated.

Re:Billions

[mathmathrevolution]

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?

Re:Billions

[mathmathrevolution]

Yeah, those babies infected with HIV should have taken more personal responsibility for their actions. Those babies are just a bunch of big babies who want to be freed from the consequences of their rampant breast-feeding.

Re:Gay Mice

[Ogi_UnixNut]

Men who don't like the fact they can't join in? Or do we work on the pretext that every lesbian is actually secretly bi and up for a little 3-way action?

Re:Billions

[sorak]

There's only one sure-fire way to be sure you won't contract HIV / AIDS sexually: Be spectacular in bed.

  If you are a a Gold Medal-winning bedroom gymnast, your partner will never need to sleep around for satisfaction! Everyone's a winner.

And don't forget to practice! practice! practice! Have sex with anybody and everybody, so that you can develop your skills to the fullest. Then, once you are having port-star quality sex with actual porn stars, they will love you enough to never have sex with anybody else!

Re:No About You

[TFAFalcon]

All diseases are easily prevented. Just stop people from having children and all humans will be perfectly healthy in a hundred years or so.

Re:No About You

[rev0lt]

Most "moral codes" with such important rules you talk about are younger than your great great grandfather. Anal sex, homossexual relations, and promiscuity in general (with both adults and children) were a common practice trough mankind's history, and without the scientific knowledge or the hygiene of today. Even the meaning of words change - 50 years ago, a man who was popular with the ladies (perhaps behaving like a dog), was called a "gay".
It seems your narrow mind of the world can't conceive infections by blood transfusions, by lineage (children infected from their moms), rape victims (quite common in african countries), superstition, or plain old ignorance.
And you don't need to fuck a bunch of skanks to get the disease - you only need to fuck one. And, considering that the infection window detection varies from 3 to 6 months, you can have a negative test and still be infected. Think about it if you ever start a serious relationship with a sexually active partner.

Re:Billions

[TFAFalcon]

We bet on the wrong stocks and lost a lot of money, the government should bail me out.

I stole a lot of money and people want to kill me, the police should stop them!

I got a lot of money by exploiting other people and someone robbed me, someone should go out and find them.

The government gave me some rights when I bribed them, and now people are infringing on them - they should all be put in jail.

I want to preach my religion to other people and they keep beating me up. People should be forced to listen to me.

Foreigners want to move into my country - we should just shoot them at the border.

Re:Billions

[GameboyRMH]

Interesting, has an ending that really makes you think...

Re:Gay Mice

[MyLongNickName]

After clicking on your name, I take it back. Carry on!

Re:Billions

[goose-incarnated]

Interesting, has an ending that really makes you think...

Well, then I consider it to be a success - science-fiction is supposed to be about the effect of fictional science, not so much about the workings of it. Hope you posted a review ;-)

Re:No About You

[mathmathrevolution]

I said "I don't sleep around a lot, but I have sex and unprotected oral sex." Only somebody seething with sexual resentment could even consider such a bland factual statement to be "crowing about how much of a stud [I am]".

AIDS exists outside US

[mathmathrevolution]

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?

Re:Billions

[EW87]

Dear rape victim who got AIDS from your rapist. It's your fault. Love, Anonymous Coward.

Re:Gay Mice

[Belial6]

That was always one the ideas that I would chuckle to myself about. Heterosexual men should want as few homosexual women, and as many homosexual men in the world as possible. We should want lots and lots of bisexual women, but very few homosexual women.

Re:Billions

[Nugoo]

Odds are pretty good there's only one of them in this thread.

Re:Billions

[Belial6]

Danny Bonaduce (Yeah, the kid from the partridge family) had a quote statement about that. When his therapist posed him with the question "If your wife was a perfect 10, and was eager to perform any sexual act you wanted, what would it take to get you to cheat on her?"

His response: "A 6 I hadn't slept with yet."

Re:No About You

[Belial6]

Of course, just because you have been married and monogamous for 30 years doesn't mean your wife has. It's not like she would tell you about banging the mechanic when she took the car in for an oil change.

Re:Trouble is

[Vaylent]

AIDS is not only caused by HIV. However, HIV causes AIDS. You can get AIDS from something like leukemia.

Re:Gay Mice

[gyaku_zuki]

It's been a few days but tbh I feel I should reply to you - you'll probably never see it, unfortunately.

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.

Actually, I chose the AC to reply to because he was the first comment on the submission that came up on screen, and as both a physicist and a 'fag', his post was relevant. I have no problem with religious people who keep their opinions where they belong - themselves, rather than policy, schools, health etc. I do not believe in religion as defined by any current religion, but I am open to the idea of something more (I never once said I was atheist). Yes, a 'nature' could be aware, but not how we as a species define conscious, surely? As I said, I find it ridiculous to think that one day, 'nature' decided to create a disease purely to screw any particular people. That is extreme arrogance to believe that our importance is high enough to justify such a move.

But yes, blah blah, I can't prove beyond any uncertainty that the universe isn't conscious. Happy? But don't pretend it changes the argument. Prove to me it is. Then I'll concede it might have made up a disease. I think it's fair that at this stage, the burden of proof is on you rather than me.

You 'know people like me' do you? From one post of a mere 6 lines or so? Professor pop-psychologist has me all figured out. In real life, away from the keyboard, I'm a wuss, who sits at home every day. Oh, no, wait. I'm in fact a university graduate at a master level in Physics and studying for a PhD, a former Irish Intervarsity champion in karate, a board member of a LGBT rights charity in Belfast as well as a volunteer.

Few minutes of pleasure? Was it good for you, too?