Study: HIV Becoming Less Deadly, Less Infectious

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Study: HIV Becoming Less Deadly, Less Infectious

Posted by Soulskill on Tuesday December 2, 2014 @07:01AM from the winning-the-long-game dept.

An anonymous reader writes: A new study (abstract) from Oxford University shows HIV is weakening as it evolves in response to our immune system. When the virus encounters somebody with a particularly strong immune system, it sacrifices efficiency in replication to gradually overcome those defenses. This causes it to take more time for the infection to cause AIDS. Professor Philip Goulder said, "It is quite striking. You can see the ability to replicate is 10% lower in Botswana than South Africa and that's quite exciting. We are observing evolution happening in front of us and it is surprising how quickly the process is happening. The virus is slowing down in its ability to cause disease and that will help contribute to elimination." Goulder added that the average time from infection to the onset of AIDS has increased by 25% over the past 10 years.

172 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Not necessarily good news by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-02 07:03 · Score: 1

It seems on it's way to becoming a more permanent and established disease.
1. Re:Not necessarily good news by Ol+Olsoc · 2014-12-02 08:38 · Score: 1
  
  It seems on it's way to becoming a more permanent and established disease.
  Not really. Imagine some sipervirus, that kills within minutes, and one for which there is no possible defense, and adapts constantly, every mutation being equally deadly.
  If this happens, eventually the virus itself goes extinct, because there are no more humans to transmit the virus. The virus's lethality caused it to commit suicide.
  Now something like AIDS, where people who live longer can presumably infect more people, than the strains that kill quickly, will indeed end up becoming more widespread. The ultimate goal of a virus is not to kill it's host creatures, but to exist inside as many people as possible them without killing or even harming them.
  Think of something like herpes. Not the ideal situation, but a lot less harmful than AIDS by comparison. This was a drastically simplified model I gave.
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
2. Re:Not necessarily good news by Firethorn · 2014-12-02 08:47 · Score: 1
  
  If this happens, eventually the virus itself goes extinct, because there are no more humans to transmit the virus. The virus's lethality caused it to commit suicide.
  'In the infection zone' at that, it doesn't mean that humans are extinct either. Ebola, for example, is so deadly that it tends to burn itself out, and it takes most of a month to kill you.
  The recent outbreak has been noted to be one of the less lethal strains seen...
  
  --
  I don't read AC A human right
3. Re:Not necessarily good news by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-02 09:27 · Score: 0
  
  It seems on it's way to becoming a more permanent and established disease.
  Like hundreds of other viruses that live in your body quietly, occasionally flare up, and that used to be much more lethal.
4. Re:Not necessarily good news by Baki · 2014-12-02 12:56 · Score: 1
  
  I read that we have lot of old retro-virus material in our DNA. Maybe this is how it went before, we get into a kind of symbiosis with the virus until it somehow merges into our DNA permanently? I'm not a microbiologist though, just guessing.
  In fact, the (my) first google hit for symbiosis retrovirus was http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm..., which superficially seems to think in the same direction w.r.t. past.
5. Re:Not necessarily good news by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-02 15:12 · Score: 0
  
  Pretty much all biological science is predicated on the assumption that evolution actually exists. If you're a non-believer, why are you reading scientific studies like this in the first place?
6. Re:Not necessarily good news by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-02 16:47 · Score: 0
  
  Incorrect. The strain (Ebola Zaire) causing the current outbreak is the one that, up until now, was considered the most deadly. What's happening is we are learning that Ebola is simply less deadly in general than we thought, that the up to 90% fatality rate was less how deadly this virus is, and more a function of the lack of medical resources in the areas afflicted.
  http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_world_/2014/10/22/paul_farmer_says_up_to_ninety_percent_of_those_infected_should_survive_ebola.html
Then again, maybe it _is_ good news. by AltGrendel · 2014-12-02 07:06 · Score: 4, Insightful

From TFA: "Some virologists suggest the virus may eventually become "almost harmless" as it continues to evolve." Yes, I realize the the article says "Some" and "almost" but still I'd rather it be like dealing with a common cold than a full shutdown of my immune system.

--
The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination
- Douglas Adams
1. Re:Then again, maybe it _is_ good news. by bunratty · 2014-12-02 07:16 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Mostly harmless!?
  
  --
  What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
2. Re: Then again, maybe it _is_ good news. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-02 07:16 · Score: 0
  
  Is the virus evolving, or is it humans doing the evolving (example: people who have strong/adapted enough immune systems are the ones left...)
3. Re: Then again, maybe it _is_ good news. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-02 07:29 · Score: 0
  
  are they mutually exclusive
4. Re: Then again, maybe it _is_ good news. by Njorthbiatr · 2014-12-02 07:37 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Viruses mutate much faster than humans.
5. Re:Then again, maybe it _is_ good news. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-02 07:37 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  But, if that happens, surely God will find some other way to punish fags? Because he hates fags, right? Right?
  That's figs, God hates figs...
6. Re: Then again, maybe it _is_ good news. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-02 07:39 · Score: 0
  
  No, don't tell him that - I'd like to see how he thinks a species can evolve against an external threat within one generation and without exposing more than a significant minority of its population to that threat.
7. Re:Then again, maybe it _is_ good news. by omnichad · 2014-12-02 07:42 · Score: 2
  
  "Nuh uh, ain't no trees in Botswana, nuh uh, I know, I AM a Botswanian lumberjack, and I ain't never had a job..."
  --Ernest P. Worrell
8. Re:Then again, maybe it _is_ good news. by VitrosChemistryAnaly · 2014-12-02 07:50 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  What we'd have then is a situation like SIV in which the virus doesn't cause disease in "natural" host organisms (such as chimpanzees) because the host can control virus replication. These people actually already exist and they're called "elite controllers". They are infected with HIV (for many, many years), but their immune system keeps the virus to almost undetectable levels. For them, HIV is harmless.
  
  I work in immunology and the coevolution of host and virus to the point where it is harmless would be a Good Thing (TM).
  
  --
  "It's a tarp!" -- Dyslexic Admiral Ackbar
9. Re: Then again, maybe it _is_ good news. by bunratty · 2014-12-02 07:55 · Score: 1
  
  Intelligent design, duh!
  
  --
  What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
10. Re:Then again, maybe it _is_ good news. by houghi · 2014-12-02 08:00 · Score: 1
  
  Well, sorry. There is only so much place you can use to describe a planet.
  
  --
  Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
11. Re:Then again, maybe it _is_ good news. by dimko · 2014-12-02 08:05 · Score: 0
  
  If you believe in god and that he created aids to punish gay people - it's God's word in actions, that he much less hates gay people. And when AIDS is curable - it will mean, that gay people are OK. Same as sexually active ones. ESPECIALLY cheating husbands and wifes.
12. Re: Then again, maybe it _is_ good news. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-02 08:05 · Score: 0
  
  You obviously haven't met my family.
13. Re:Then again, maybe it _is_ good news. by Opportunist · 2014-12-02 08:09 · Score: 1
  
  He is. He makes people want them to marry. And, let's be honest, is there a bigger punishment for man than marriage?
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
14. Re:Then again, maybe it _is_ good news. by mc6809e · 2014-12-02 08:30 · Score: 1
  
  I work in immunology and the coevolution of host and virus to the point where it is harmless would be a Good Thing (TM).
  Perhaps good in the long run, but coevolution implies the evolution of the host, too, and that requires an increase, at least temporarily, in the number of dead humans (that pesky selection part of evolution).
15. Re:Then again, maybe it _is_ good news. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-02 08:33 · Score: 0
  
  Perhaps it was created to punish promiscuous people who don't understand the dangers of receptive sex without barrier protection.
16. Re:Then again, maybe it _is_ good news. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-02 08:33 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  I hate fags as well.. They're always going around on their Harley motorcycles annoying the hell out of everyone.
17. Re:Then again, maybe it _is_ good news. by tnk1 · 2014-12-02 08:34 · Score: 1
  
  Perhaps it was created to punish promiscuous people who don't understand the dangers of receptive sex without barrier protection.
  ...and people who have blood transfusions.
  Which proves that God is a Christian Scientist. Don't you all feel stupid now?
18. Re:Then again, maybe it _is_ good news. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-02 08:40 · Score: 0
  
  That isn't specifically true at all. It's all about whether you can reproduce, and have a surviving child more than it is about dying. Also nobody is suggesting we just stop trying to find a solution and let it run its course. The people who will happen to succumb to aids will die because of aids, not because of "coevolution". All this is obviously ignoring the fact that the virus evolves a bit faster than we do given it's natural life cycle and mutation rate.
19. Re:Then again, maybe it _is_ good news. by Ol+Olsoc · 2014-12-02 08:42 · Score: 1
  
  If you believe in god and that he created aids to punish gay people - it's God's word in actions, that he much less hates gay people. And when AIDS is curable - it will mean, that gay people are OK. Same as sexually active ones. ESPECIALLY cheating husbands and wifes.
  Yeah, but you know all those gays getting married destroys the sanctity of fundamentalist Christians' fourth marriage.
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
20. Re:Then again, maybe it _is_ good news. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-02 08:49 · Score: 0
  
  could end up the same way as HSV... i guess good for people as a whole, but i personally still don't want it...
21. Re:Then again, maybe it _is_ good news. by mc6809e · 2014-12-02 09:15 · Score: 2
  
  That isn't specifically true at all. It's all about whether you can reproduce, and have a surviving child more than it is about dying.
  
  But there's an advantage to having parents and the parents of parents continuing to live on.
  While older adults might not be able to reproduce, the help and assistance of older non-reproducing adults can factor into their descendent's ability to reproduce.
22. Re: Then again, maybe it _is_ good news. by mcrbids · 2014-12-02 09:19 · Score: 2
  
  Viruses mutate much faster than humans.
  The truth of this statement really comes down to the definition of "mutate".
  People don't exist in "bare form". We have a complex and growing plethora of decidedly human artifacts like clothing, houses, governments, and technology. Subsequently, people have evolved to respond very quickly and intelligently to a myriad of environmental threats, ranging from viruses and disease to climate change. That these responses are exobiological doesn't mitigate the fact that they function as evolution of the human collective presence.
  I would argue that this collection of exobiological factors are as much a part of evolution for mankind as a purely biological evolution. By this definition, a quarantine is every bit as relevant as a new gene.
  
  --
  I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
23. Re:Then again, maybe it _is_ good news. by Jason+Levine · 2014-12-02 09:47 · Score: 1
  
  He is. He makes people want them to marry. And, let's be honest, is there a bigger punishment for man than marriage?
  I'm married and I disagree with this 100%.
  *checks to see if my wife is looking.*
  
  --
  My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
24. Re: Then again, maybe it _is_ good news. by Jason+Levine · 2014-12-02 09:51 · Score: 1
  
  People don't exist in "bare form". We have a complex and growing plethora of decidedly human artifacts like clothing, houses, governments, and technology. Subsequently, people have evolved to respond very quickly and intelligently to a myriad of environmental threats, ranging from viruses and disease to climate change.
  I've often wondered. Suppose you had a time machine, went back, took some random person from the year 1900, and brought them to the present day. How would they fare in the modern world? My guess is that there would be a big adjustment period but they would manage. How about a person from 1850? 1800? 1700? At what point would the person be so totally lost in modern society that they wouldn't be able to function at all. (We can even make it easier for the people by assuming some sort of universal translator so a person from 1700 doesn't have the hurdle of not speaking 21st century English.)
  
  --
  My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
25. Re: Then again, maybe it _is_ good news. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-02 09:55 · Score: 0
  
  Culling works even faster. People with strong immune system remain alive longer than people with weak immune system.
26. Re:Then again, maybe it _is_ good news. by MightyMartian · 2014-12-02 10:07 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  All I know is that evolution is a lie. Have you ever soon an HIV virus turn into a fish or a dog? Well, HAVE YOU???
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
27. Re:Then again, maybe it _is_ good news. by SumDog · 2014-12-02 10:10 · Score: 2
  
  I know we've found some of these "elite controllers" in the form of children; families who adopted kids in the late 80s and early 90s. The drugs were so hard on kids that many would get sick immediately. So you you give the kids drugs so they can live until 15 or don't and they live to be 8 (but happier for a bit).
  Some parents chose to take their kids off the drugs..and some of those kids are in their late 20s today! But many of them aren't.
  My question: how do you find these cases in adults? You can't ethically give someone a placebo for 5 years! Are these people who the point of infection can be narrowed down to an instance and who discover they have HIV 6+ years after the fact?
28. Re:Then again, maybe it _is_ good news. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-02 10:38 · Score: 0
  
  God doesn't hate them. In fact He loves them so much he sent His son to die for them.
29. Re: Then again, maybe it _is_ good news. by toejam13 · 2014-12-02 10:43 · Score: 1
  
  I've often wondered. Suppose you had a time machine, went back, took some random person from the year 1900, and brought them to the present day. How would they fare in the modern world? My guess is that there would be a big adjustment period but they would manage. How about a person from 1850? 1800? 1700? At what point would the person be so totally lost in modern society that they wouldn't be able to function at all.
  If you want an example, look at how refugees from poor rural areas in third world countries handle the transition when they arrive in a first world nation. You often have massive language and cultural barriers. First hand knowledge and use of technology is going to be limited. They're going to know little to nothing about our laws. If you just drop them into the middle of NYC, they will do very poorly.
  If you put them into an orientation program and assign them to a handler who will bring them up to speed, they'll probably do alright. It might take a decade before they're comfortable in their new home, especially if language was a barrier, but it will eventually happen. There are millions of examples all throughout the western world of this happening. People adapt.
30. Re:Then again, maybe it _is_ good news. by ch0knuti · 2014-12-02 11:07 · Score: 1
  
  Posting to undo wrong mod. I wish slashdot had an "undomod" feature.
31. Re:Then again, maybe it _is_ good news. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-02 11:21 · Score: 0
  
  once, but it may have been the acid.
  CAPCHA: tumbler
32. Re: Then again, maybe it _is_ good news. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-02 11:28 · Score: 0
  
  A lot would depend on the age of the subject.
  The main disadvantage a person from antiquity would have in the modern world is the lack of education. The second most significant is cultural ignorance.
  A 5 year old would probably 'catch up' and be indistinguishable form their peers in a year or less. A 20 year old might need closer to 4-8 years (basicly redoing highshool/college), a 40 year old might not ever catch up to their modern peers.
33. Re:Then again, maybe it _is_ good news. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-02 11:39 · Score: 0
  
  So, lemme get this straight...
  He sacrificed his son, who is also himself...TO HIMSELF. He did this to STOP himself from throwing his own creations, freely-made, into the Hell he also freely made (but never told the Jews about; no, he let the pagan Persians and Greeks do that...), for the sins he knew they would commit before he made them, using the free will he freely gave them (and which, somehow, does not conflict with his omniscience, casuality-transcendence, or absolute sovereignty).
  And it's all because a woman cloned from the rib (or side, or thigh, or now-missing penis-bone) of a man made of dirt ate a piece of fruit giving her knowledge of good and evil because a talking, four-legged snake who may or may not be said God's prosecuting-attorney-turned-rival told her to...and is punished for doing something wrong before she, by definition, could know that it WAS wrong.
  And it mostly...doesn't...work.
  Jumping Jehosaphat. What was Yahweh smoking?!
34. Re:Then again, maybe it _is_ good news. by dimko · 2014-12-02 11:42 · Score: 1
  
  I know! Horrible! Terrible! Because of gay marriages normal marriages increasingly break apart! Like in last 20 or so years divorces have increased by 100% or more! Abama is gay Muslim terorist!
35. Re:Then again, maybe it _is_ good news. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-02 11:45 · Score: 0
  
  "I work in immunology"
  I haven't been able to get a good explanation for this, perhaps you can help. When I look at the original Montangier paper (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6189183) I see a figure 3b with a gel supposedly depicting the detection of purified HIV protein. There is an arrow pointing at a supposed "band" with mw=25, they discuss this "viral protien" in the text, but there is no band. Despite the various controversies surrounding HIV (the lawsuits, etc) I could not find anyone mentioning this peculiarity.
36. Re:Then again, maybe it _is_ good news. by dimko · 2014-12-02 11:51 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  No, but we have seen a plenty of examples of tape worms and amoebas evolving into politicians!
37. Re:Then again, maybe it _is_ good news. by desdinova+216 · 2014-12-02 11:57 · Score: 2
  
  why do you have to insult Tapeworms and Amoebas like that?
38. Re: Then again, maybe it _is_ good news. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-02 12:01 · Score: 0
  
  Yep...God damn all those women who allow themselves to get raped
39. Re:Then again, maybe it _is_ good news. by dimko · 2014-12-02 12:16 · Score: 2
  
  But, but, but... They have INVOLVED into THAT! So they are not amoebas and tapeworms any more! Totally their fault! Politicians are self sufficient curse word on it's own today!
40. Re: Then again, maybe it _is_ good news. by SalafranceUnderhill · 2014-12-02 16:24 · Score: 1
  
  Virus. Generation time maybe 20 minutes. Human. Generation time perhaps 20 years.
  What do *you* think?
41. Re: Then again, maybe it _is_ good news. by SalafranceUnderhill · 2014-12-02 16:28 · Score: 1
  
  This is cultural evolution, rather than genetic evolution. It's as different entropy in thermodynamics, contrasted with entropy in information theory. One of these things is not like the other. Yes, there are similarities, just as there are similarities between a Volkswagen Beetle, and a picture of a Volkswagen Beetle.
42. Re: Then again, maybe it _is_ good news. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-03 01:33 · Score: 0
  
  Natural selection leaving only the fittest. Virus doesn't have to evolve for the human race to "evolve" in a single generation. Can be a much shorter time (like months), depending on how lethal the virus is.
43. Re:Then again, maybe it _is_ good news. by VitrosChemistryAnaly · 2014-12-03 02:59 · Score: 2
  
  My question: how do you find these cases in adults? You can't ethically give someone a placebo for 5 years! Are these people who the point of infection can be narrowed down to an instance and who discover they have HIV 6+ years after the fact?
  I'm not the clinician in my lab, but here's the way that I understand it works:
  After a person tests positive for HIV, their CD4+ T-cell count is monitored. Once that count goes below a certain level they are placed on anti-retroviral therapy. Elite controllers are those whose CD4+ T-cell count never goes down and have nearly undetectable viral loads. For those who don't know, HIV tests actually test whether your body is making antibodies against HIV and don't directly measure viral load.
  
  --
  "It's a tarp!" -- Dyslexic Admiral Ackbar
44. Re: Then again, maybe it _is_ good news. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-03 04:53 · Score: 0
  
  While you have a good argument, it misses the point because mutate in a genetic context involves the DNA changing.
  Now, if you want to redefine things willy nilly, I would point out that your definition really depends on what you mean by clothing. After all houses are a type of clothing, and government means clothe us from injustices, technology clothes us from certain kinds of effort, etc...
45. Re: Then again, maybe it _is_ good news. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-03 05:50 · Score: 0
  
  Depends on the person. A lot of academics from the 15th century on mastered many languages; they'd probably be able to adapt.
  OTOH, someone with only narrow exposure to the world might be slower to adapt. This is not so different from people today - neuroplasticity is tied to diversity of experience.
46. Re:Then again, maybe it _is_ good news. by Sri+Ramkrishna · 2014-12-03 09:45 · Score: 1
  
  Naw someone took the rap, (e.g. Jesus part deux, electric bugaloo)
47. Re: Then again, maybe it _is_ good news. by knorthern+knight · 2014-12-03 12:14 · Score: 1
  
  > No, don't tell him that - I'd like to see how he thinks a species can
  > evolve against an external threat within one generation and without
  > exposing more than a significant minority of its population to that threat.
  You are mis-understanding Darwinism. The premise behind Darwinism is that...
  * random shit happens during the reproductive process, resulting in random mutations within a species (e.g. Homo Sapiens)
  * random shit happens when the environment throws different survival problems at the species (e.g. AIDS)
  * the individuals with beneficial differences (i.e. stronger immune systems against AIDS) are more likely to survive, and procreate, passing their AIDS-resistance mutation to their children
  This, in a nutshell is "survival of the fittest". The problem quantifying "fittest" is that it depends on the external environment. E.g. Sickle Cell anemia gene carriers (usually African origin) have higher resistance to malaria, which is a net survival plus in African jungles, notwithstanding some anemia. In the African jungles that meant they survived better, and had more children.
  Then some were taken as slaves to the US. 200+ years later, the superior malaria-resistance is not helpful, but the anemia side-effects remain, so it's a net minus.
  
  --
  
  I'm not repeating myself
  I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
48. Re:Then again, maybe it _is_ good news. by niftymitch · 2014-12-03 18:15 · Score: 1
  
  From TFA: "Some virologists suggest the virus may eventually become "almost harmless" as it continues to evolve."
  Yes, I realize the the article says "Some" and "almost" but still I'd rather it be like dealing with a common cold than a full shutdown of my immune system.
  "May" and "almost harmless" not in my lifetime.
  Ask any person that suffers shingles, virus populations in West Africa may evolve a less lethal
  variety of Ebola... but I am not going to bet on it. Singles hides in nerve tissue and can attack
  60 years after infection..... that is like three generations.
  At best we might see a Cowpox/Smallpox pair but as world history shows Cowpox does
  not visit a population far and wide enough to make Smallpox go away. Smallpox is still
  a global risk. The fact that we have "eradicated it" means that most will not get immunized
  at all today.. unlike my generation where I was immunized at least three times gives me
  pause. The risk of smallpox escaping from immunization manufacturing scares the industry
  so much that they are unwilling to be in the business.
  The only hope for people with regard to HIV & Ebola consists of social changes
  an if we are lucky immunizations. Condoms, monogamy will help with HIV.
  Major religious changes that eliminate the very dangerous funeral practices combined
  with better sanitation, cooking practices and aggressive health care mobilization
  by a trusting population are needed for Ebola.
  But not in a lifetime....
  
  --
  Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't. Mark Twain.
49. Re:Then again, maybe it _is_ good news. by rs79 · 2014-12-03 20:01 · Score: 1
  
  "Ask any person that suffers shingles, virus populations in West Africa may evolve a less lethal variety of Ebola... but I am not going to bet on it."
  Actually the lethal strains of EBOV are a mutation of the Asian strain we know as "Reston" which is harmless. It does not encode for selenium.
  When the virus made it to the selenium rich soils of West Africa it mutated picking up the encoding for a homologue of the human selenoenzyme glutathione peroxidase (GPx3) which makes it lethal. See: http://orthomolecular.org/libr...
  "The only hope for people with regard to HIV & Ebola consists of social changes an if we are lucky immunizations"
  There can be no working vaccine; you can induce production of antibodies, but absent sufficient serum selenium the immune system cannot out-compete the virus foe the precursors for GPx3 and the it all goes downhill from there. One researcher has stated "Ebola strips selenium from the body so quickly it does in a day what HIV takes 10 years to do".
  The hope for patients with HIV and EBOV lies in the coastal forests of West Gabon. See:
  http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09...
  http://en.ird.fr/the-media-cen...
  http://www.plosone.org/article...
  
  --
  Need Mercedes parts ?
HIV, now friendlier than ever! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-02 07:11 · Score: 5, Funny

Comcast is really excited. If HIV can get some positive press, they may have some hope, too.
1. Re:HIV, now friendlier than ever! by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · 2014-12-02 07:57 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  * After initial promo period, regular deadliness applies.
2. Re:HIV, now friendlier than ever! by Arancaytar · 2014-12-02 08:27 · Score: 1
  
  Ebola and ISIS both still have fairly bad raps, so fat chance for Comcast.
3. Re:HIV, now friendlier than ever! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-02 08:35 · Score: 0
  
  News at 11, HIV now harmless, Comcast is now "the nice guy".
  Excuse me while i choke with laughter on my wheeties.
4. Re:HIV, now friendlier than ever! by hey! · 2014-12-02 13:43 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Dunno. Seems to me like HIV has a built-in advantage. It's usually more fun to get than Comcast is.
  
  --
  Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
5. Re:HIV, now friendlier than ever! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-02 16:01 · Score: 0
  
  http://www.komonews.com/news/business/Adrian-Peterson-Wheaties-boxes-still-for-sale-284541721.html
Raining on the parade by javilon · 2014-12-02 07:16 · Score: 3, Interesting

I hate to say this, but if the virus is changing in that direction, it means it is more effective at infecting people that way. That's the way evolution works.
I guess if the virus is low key for a long time, it is detected later and retrovirals are started later, so it gets more chances to infect someone. Also, if the virus damages the body less, or the damage is slowwer, there are more chances it is not treated, so again it gets more chances to infect.
While it is good news that VIH is becoming less deadly, I wouldn't like it to become a chronic infection slowly debilitating and eventually killing its hosts. That would cause it not to be treated at all in poor countries.

--

When his defense asked, "Which computer has Jon Johansen trespassed upon?" the answer was: "His own."
1. Re:Raining on the parade by BarbaraHudson · 2014-12-02 07:22 · Score: 1
  
  But over the long term, dead is still dead. So if it takes an extra 10 years to kill you ...
  
  When the virus encounters somebody with a particularly strong immune system, it sacrifices efficiency in replication to gradually overcome those defenses.
  
  Sounds more like the ones that succeed will be super-bugs, same as every other infectious disease that we're combating that has developed resistance.
  
  --
  "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
2. Re:Raining on the parade by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-02 07:35 · Score: 0
  
  And what it hits "takes an extra 90 years to kill you"? At some point you will die of "old age" before HIV kills you. A sizable portion of your DNA is from "evolved" retro viruses that have long since been absorbed into the human species.
3. Re:Raining on the parade by CrankyFool · 2014-12-02 07:39 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Over the long term, you're going to die anyway.
  If HIV becomes the sort of virus that basically will take decades and decades to kill you (with lots of medicine, it pretty much is already that, except that in a lot of countries you don't get "lots of medicine"), then its relevance to your lifespan decreases.
  There's a form of prostate cancer that develops so slowly that if you're old enough when you get it, it's considered quite reasonable to not even treat it, but rather monitor it to make sure it continues to develop slowly.
4. Re:Raining on the parade by ArcadeMan · 2014-12-02 07:51 · Score: 1
  
  Over the long term, you're going to die anyway.
  Bender: Dying sucks butt! How do you living beings cope with mortality?
  Turanga Leela: Violent outbursts.
  Amy Wong: General sluttiness.
  Philip J. Fry: Thanks to denial, I'm immortal.
  
  --
  Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
5. Re:Raining on the parade by vux984 · 2014-12-02 07:59 · Score: 1
  
  I hate to say this, but if the virus is changing in that direction, it means it is more effective at infecting people that way. That's the way evolution works.
  Yes, its more effective at surviving if it doesn't harm its hosts.
  While it is good news that VIH is becoming less deadly, I wouldn't like it to become a chronic infection slowly debilitating and eventually killing its hosts. That would cause it not to be treated at all in poor countries.
  The less harmful it becomes the better it survives. If it becomes harmless or a minor irritant, that would be a good thing.
6. Re:Raining on the parade by omnichad · 2014-12-02 08:01 · Score: 1
  
  Bender: Dying sucks butt! How do you living beings cope with mortality?
  The same Bender that tried to commit suicide in the first episode...
7. Re:Raining on the parade by Ol+Olsoc · 2014-12-02 08:49 · Score: 1
  
  Over the long term, you're going to die anyway.
  Nuh Uh! I vecame vegan, don't eat any fat or salt, take 10 different maintenance drugs every day, and live in a safe room except when I go to the doctors. I'm gonna live 4-evah!
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
8. Re:Raining on the parade by TheCarp · 2014-12-02 09:13 · Score: 1
  
  > There's a form of prostate cancer that develops so slowly that if you're old enough when you get it, it's
  > considered quite reasonable to not even treat it, but rather monitor it to make sure it continues to develop slowly.
  Actually I ran into this concept through my wife's family: her grandfather recently developed leukemia and the doctors said it wasn't a cause for concern because at his age they expect it to progress slowly enough that something else is almost certainly going to kill him first.
  Though as I read all this it reminds me of an older story where some segments of human DNA have actually been traced back not to other mammals but to viruses which infected our ancestors and managed to make their way into the reproduction pipeline and become part of our genome.
  
  --
  "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
9. Re:Raining on the parade by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-02 09:36 · Score: 0
  
  Oh man :( Spoiler alert!!!
10. Re:Raining on the parade by BarbaraHudson · 2014-12-02 09:38 · Score: 1
  
  That is hardly reassuring, since it won't happen in the lifetime of anyone alive today unless they reach 100 (if even then). And this will only apply to those whose immune system is strong enough that the virus slows down its replication speed to kill the host.
  Until we develop a vaccine, be careful. Be very, very careful.
  
  --
  "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
11. Re:Raining on the parade by BarbaraHudson · 2014-12-02 09:43 · Score: 1
  
  You're talking about a natural response to a disease. The natural response to AIDS is to eventually die. Right now we can put that date off, but that's it. AIDS isn't going to become like the common cold for a long, long time - and that would require natural selection to kill off all those who are susceptible to AIDS in the meantime. No thanks, Let's concentrate on finding a cure instead of letting the grim reaper kill off the weak +99% of the population.
  
  --
  "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
12. Re:Raining on the parade by fermion · 2014-12-02 10:00 · Score: 1
  
  Also, infection rates are going up, particularly young teens and early adults,particularly men. HIV may now be a less virulent disease that is chronic instead of fatal, but is still a huge short term problem. I don't know if kids think there is less risk, or parent's are more conservative and not teaching safe sex, but something is going to have to change short term if the epidemic is not going to grow.
  
  --
  "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
13. Re:Raining on the parade by u38cg · 2014-12-02 11:32 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, we mostly call that prostate cancer. Most (old) men die with a prostate cancer in situ.
  
  --
  [FUCK BETA]
14. Re:Raining on the parade by Just+Some+Guy · 2014-12-02 12:20 · Score: 2
  
  Nuh Uh! I vecame vegan, don't eat any fat or salt, take 10 different maintenance drugs every day, and live in a safe room except when I go to the doctors. I'm gonna live 4-evah!
  Do you also have a fixie? If so, $5 says you're a software engineer at a Bay Area startup.
  
  --
  Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
15. Re:Raining on the parade by hey! · 2014-12-02 13:56 · Score: 1
  
  Well, on the flip of the flip side, the virus doesn't actually "mean" us harm. Some viruses reach a kind of commensalism with their host population where they do not do significant harm to that population, they more or less hitch a ride.
  
  --
  Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
16. Re:Raining on the parade by Ol+Olsoc · 2014-12-02 14:19 · Score: 1
  
  Nuh Uh! I vecame vegan, don't eat any fat or salt, take 10 different maintenance drugs every day, and live in a safe room except when I go to the doctors. I'm gonna live 4-evah!
  Do you also have a fixie? If so, $5 says you're a software engineer at a Bay Area startup.
  Nope, just a sarcstic ass who thinks too many people think they are going to live forever.
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
17. Re:Raining on the parade by dunkelfalke · 2014-12-02 20:43 · Score: 1
  
  There is a Marillion song just about this ;-)
  
  Well, I gave up sugar and I gave up spice
  I gave up everything that feels all right
  'Cause I feel that these addictions
  Are a chain you have to sever
  I'm addicted to believing that I'm going to live forever
  
  --
  "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
Contribute to Elimination? by tomxor · 2014-12-02 07:21 · Score: 4, Interesting

"The virus is slowing down in its ability to cause disease and that will help contribute to elimination."
Not sure if this is incorrectly phrased or i'm incorrect in my understanding of viral evolution... The virus has evolved to slow down the process of causing disease, surely this is because it is advantageous to the continuation of this virus, if the host dies too quickly they are less likely to pass on the virus. So how does this contribute to eliminating the virus? is it not the opposite? Longer infected lifespan == Greater chance of transmission.
1. Re:Contribute to Elimination? by Richy_T · 2014-12-02 07:34 · Score: 1
  
  That was my first thought too. However, it is up against an opponent that is able to employ strategy and tactics so *shrug*
2. Re:Contribute to Elimination? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-02 07:37 · Score: 0
  
  Good point; perhaps he meant elimination of AIDS?
  An HIV positive person with a benign form of HIV isn't good but is a far cry better than a much more virulent strain. If HIV were able to coexist in the human body without causing AIDS, then the importance of treatment would decrease. I'm not a doctor nor do I deal with infectious diseases in any way, so I'm just speculating.
3. Re:Contribute to Elimination? by Registered+Coward+v2 · 2014-12-02 07:42 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  "The virus is slowing down in its ability to cause disease and that will help contribute to elimination."
  Not sure if this is incorrectly phrased or i'm incorrect in my understanding of viral evolution... The virus has evolved to slow down the process of causing disease, surely this is because it is advantageous to the continuation of this virus, if the host dies too quickly they are less likely to pass on the virus. So how does this contribute to eliminating the virus? is it not the opposite? Longer infected lifespan == Greater chance of transmission.
  What the article says is the virus, as it adapts to a strong immune system weakens it's ability to replicate; thus slowing down the onset of the disease in the host. If another person is infected by this weaker virus, the new infection results in an even weaker virus as it tries to adapt to the host. In essence, each successive infection results in a virus less able to replicate and thus result in a slower and slower onset of AIDs. Over time, the virus may lose it's ability to replicate fast enough to cause AIDs and merely be another infection for the body to deal with.
  
  --
  I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
4. Re:Contribute to Elimination? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-02 07:44 · Score: 0
  
  ah, but it is also becoming less infectious...
  Longer life span of the infected, but less likely to infect others... I can't say if the two cancel each other out or not, the folks interviewed seem to have made a determination.
5. Re:Contribute to Elimination? by Opportunist · 2014-12-02 08:23 · Score: 1
  
  Look at it from a risk management point of view. Risk management considers it "no risk" if either the impact is zero (if it rains it's very likely that your car will get wet but getting wet has no negative impact on its functionality, so there is no need to protect it from rain) or if the chance of occurring is zero (if the moon fell on your head it would be devastating, but it just can't happen).
  So if there is a great chance of transmission while the impact is negligible (not saying it is, but it's allegedly "evolving towards it"), getting it simply would not matter.
  Ok, we're far from there, but you always have to look at the impact and the likelihood, one alone doesn't mean much. It seems that in this scenario the likelihood would increase while the impact would decline. Whether that's good or bad depends entirely on how they both change in respect to each other. If we're reaching an impact where we can say we can manage the virus and people infected will still live a normal life albeit with medication (like e.g. people with diabetes or similar life long diseases that cannot be cured but managed and treated), while the likelihood increases slightly, we're talking about a good development. If we're getting to the point where fucking someone without a rubber is akin to playing Russian roulette with 6 chambers loaded while the impact changes from "death spell" to "death spell with a chance to at least see your kids graduate if they're in elementary already", it's not really a good development.
  We'd have to look at both. If it gets more likely to get it doesn't mean that it's bad any more than just because it gets less deadly means that we're heading in a good direction.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
6. Re:Contribute to Elimination? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-02 09:34 · Score: 0
  
  I assumed that they meant eliminating the disease, not eliminating the virus. If HIV evolves to the point where it never causes AIDS, then it's an infectious virus which causes acute retroviral syndrome, then impairs the immune system but is basically asymptomatic, and then doesn't cause full immune collapse and deficiency. It's like the difference between, say, getting Ebola and Lyme disease.
7. Re:Contribute to Elimination? by david_thornley · 2014-12-05 09:44 · Score: 1
  
  At which point, it becomes really evolutionarily successful: able to infect all the hosts it can get to without this pesky business of them dying off, or feeling they have to avoid possible transmission methods.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Since God Did It... by BenLutgens · 2014-12-02 07:21 · Score: 0

Perhaps he's not as pissed at us for the rampant Gay as the far right wing bible banging charlatans would have us believe!
On a more serious note, this is weird right? Isn't this the exact opposite of expected virus behavior? To evolve to become LESS likely to spread?

--
"If you love someone, set them free. If they come home, set them on fire." - George Carlin
1. Re: Since God Did It... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-02 07:41 · Score: 0
  
  The delay is HIV to AIDS.
2. Re:Since God Did It... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-02 07:43 · Score: 0
  
  How does evolving to be less likely to kill you as fast make it less likely to spread?
3. Re:Since God Did It... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-02 07:44 · Score: 1
  
  Isn't this the exact opposite of expected virus behavior? To evolve to become LESS likely to spread?
  It's not less likely to spread, it's less likely to cause AIDS. The gold is to spread. Causing AIDS is a side effect.
How is this good? by MobyDisk · 2014-12-02 07:24 · Score: 4, Interesting

One of the most nasty things a disease can do is to slowly replicate without causing symptoms. These long incubation periods are why Ebola, Tuberculosis, and Rabies are so dangerous. It makes them hard to detect and gives the host time to travel and potentially infect others without either party knowing. By the time the symptoms manifest it is often too late. By contrast, a disease that produces symptoms immediately is easily detectable and the host seeks treatment. If it is really really fast, they die before they can pass it on, and such diseases quickly eradicate themselves.
I don't look forward to a world where AIDS only manifests after 30 years, but everyone has it.
1. Re:How is this good? by Registered+Coward+v2 · 2014-12-02 07:44 · Score: 1
  
  One of the most nasty things a disease can do is to slowly replicate without causing symptoms. These long incubation periods are why Ebola, Tuberculosis, and Rabies are so dangerous. It makes them hard to detect and gives the host time to travel and potentially infect others without either party knowing. By the time the symptoms manifest it is often too late. By contrast, a disease that produces symptoms immediately is easily detectable and the host seeks treatment. If it is really really fast, they die before they can pass it on, and such diseases quickly eradicate themselves.
  I don't look forward to a world where AIDS only manifests after 30 years, but everyone has it.
  Except in this case, slow replication means the host never gets sick enough to die; they merely live with an infection and may exhibit no symptoms of the disease. They remain contagious but the disease no longer progresses to full blown AIDs.
  
  --
  I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
2. Re:How is this good? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-02 07:52 · Score: 1
  
  It becomes more like, say, Herpes: life long infection that is not fatal.
3. Re:How is this good? by MobyDisk · 2014-12-02 08:16 · Score: 1
  
  In what case?
4. Re:How is this good? by Registered+Coward+v2 · 2014-12-02 08:39 · Score: 1
  
  In what case?
  A disease that is mutating to bece less deadly unlike the cases you describe.
  
  --
  I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
5. Re:How is this good? by silfen · 2014-12-02 09:35 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  I don't look forward to a world where AIDS only manifests after 30 years, but everyone has it.
  You mean like HPV, HSV, EBV, CMV, and hundreds of other viruses large parts of the population carry and live with? Not to mention all the bacteria and parasites that live inside and on us? One more persistent virus that doesn't cause disease in most people isn't going to make a hell of a lot of difference. HIV should hurry up and evolve already.
  
  By contrast, a disease that produces symptoms immediately is easily detectable and the host seeks treatment. If it is really really fast, they die before they can pass it on, and such diseases quickly eradicate themselves.
  Which is why evolution selects against them. You don't get a choice in the matter.
6. Re:How is this good? by Jason+Levine · 2014-12-02 09:55 · Score: 1
  
  Doesn't Ebola only transmit when symptoms present themselves. If John Smith gets infected with Ebola and you are around him, you aren't in any danger. Once he shows symptoms though, he can transmit Ebola to someone else.
  There are other viruses, though, that are the exact opposite. Once symptoms show, they are beyond the "spread far and wide" phase.
  
  --
  My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
7. Re:How is this good? by xigxag · 2014-12-02 09:57 · Score: 1
  
  AIDS already has a ridiculously long latency period, about 10 years. Far longer than incubation periods of Ebola (2-3 weeks), TB (10 weeks) and rabies (usually around 8 weeks). So it's already hard to detect externally, unless you happen to notice the initial rash and fever symptoms. Stretching out the latency period further won't infect more people, just add more years to people's lives and make it easier to manage the viral load with less medication.
  
  --
  There are two kinds of people: 1) those who start arrays with one and 1) those who start them with zero.
8. Re:How is this good? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-02 11:53 · Score: 0
  
  We'll probably also have better medications, or even host immunization approaches to allow much easier managing of the virus, possibly to the point that you aren't cured but also not infective and require very little or even no therapy. Since there is a lot of public funding, there's a chance that this will be accessible to the world and then the whole thing will slowly slide out of collective mind.
9. Re:How is this good? by Yaotzin · 2014-12-02 22:47 · Score: 1
  
  As far as I know, that is more or less correct. Incubation time for ebola is 2-21 days during which you are not infectious. After that (appearance of symptoms) the risk of infection is manifested and remains an issue for as long as the virus is present in bodily fluids. Men can remain infectious for about 7 weeks as the seminal fluid acts as a reservoir for the virus. In summary, if John Smith hasn't had any symptoms there is no risk but I wouldn't associate too closely with him for a month or three if he has, even if there are no symptoms presently.
  
  --
  Error: No error occurred
10. Re:How is this good? by MobyDisk · 2014-12-03 00:19 · Score: 1
  
  If we are sticking with my example, it does cause disease - it kills you in 30 years. I don't like that. Everyone is hoping it approaches 90 years, 100 years - well, good luck with that. I'd rather just stop the disease entirely since it is totally preventable.
11. Re:How is this good? by MobyDisk · 2014-12-03 00:23 · Score: 1
  
  This is what the press has been saying but it isn't 100% accurate. One is less likely to infect, but it is still infectious. Naturally, a person coughing and sweating profusely is excreting more bodily fluids than someone who is asymptomatic. But they are also more likely to travel and go into work, thus exposing people. It is a double-edged sword.
12. Re:How is this good? by silfen · 2014-12-03 02:47 · Score: 1
  
  Your example isn't reasonable. As a virus evolves, disease doesn't just take longer to manifest itself, it also becomes milder in the process and manifests in fewer people. That's why I gave the examples of those other viruses; they are a roadmap of how HIV will likely evolve. And yes, that is a good thing.
  Saying "you'd rather stop" is a false dichotomy: you don't have the choice. In addition, wasting resources on viruses that cause less serious and less frequent disease means people suffer and die unnecessarily.
13. Re:How is this good? by niftymitch · 2014-12-03 18:47 · Score: 1
  
  One of the most nasty things a disease can do is to slowly replicate without causing symptoms. These long incubation periods are why Ebola, Tuberculosis, and Rabies are so dangerous. ......snip....
  It is necessary to add some measures of infection and transmission (transmissibility). If a person is infectious for a long period
  with no or difficult to detect symptoms the world has a massive problem if the end result is kin to the final week or two of a hemorrhagic
  fever like Ebola.
  Transmissibility i.e. the evolutions of a virus ability to infect others is missing in the original article.
  A virus could become benign OR it could combine the long incubation of HIV and Ebola but acquire the
  rapid transmissibility of influenza and run wild across the globe reducing the population by +80%.
  The 80% is a personal SWAG that assumes the collapse of health care that today gives Ebola victims
  a fighting chance.
  Another risk is for a very infectious hemorrhagic fever class virus to emerge and attack livestock, poultry,
  fish and swine. Oceanic fish infections scare me.... Any of these might cause global or regional famine
  and global or regional conflict.
  
  --
  Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't. Mark Twain.
DrudgeDot or SlashReport? by entertainment · 2014-12-02 07:30 · Score: 0

Slashdot digging up Drudge headlines a few hours later than I read them.... You guys are slipping hard. Just another roll of the DICE
Oh I've seen this before... by TFlan91 · 2014-12-02 07:33 · Score: 2

Just went on a family vacation where my little brothers were playing a game on their iDevices.
The game - not giving it any specific advertisement - revolves around you "building" a disease meant to kill everyone on Earth. It gives you 3 categories on how the disease is perceived; Infectivity, Severity, and Lethality.
As Severity increases, the world becomes aware of the disease, the higher the severity the greater the focus the world has on finding a cure. So to combat this, you "devolve" traits that increase severity until the world doesn't care anymore or cares less than you want it to so infection continues.
Keeping on this fine line of severity until everyone in the world is infected, and then you "evolve" traits that kills everyone within minutes, winning you the game.
It seems HIV is taking a page out this games strategy book and sayin "Hey! Don't look at me, I won't kill you for another 20 years! Look at that guy over there first! (heuheuheuheu)".
1. Re:Oh I've seen this before... by Ol+Olsoc · 2014-12-02 08:59 · Score: 1
  
  Keeping on this fine line of severity until everyone in the world is infected, and then you "evolve" traits that kills everyone within minutes, winning you the game.
  It seems HIV is taking a page out this games strategy book and sayin "Hey! Don't look at me, I won't kill you for another 20 years! Look at that guy over there first! (heuheuheuheu)".
  Too bad evolution doesn't work that way. This game seems to think that viruses think, and that they live forever, all mutate at once, and commit suicide as a goal.
  hint: if all humans are dead, any virus that requires humans dies with them.
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
2. Re:Oh I've seen this before... by Jason+Levine · 2014-12-02 09:59 · Score: 1
  
  I played a Flash game like this years ago. (It was called Pandemic. I believe there's a tabletop game with the same name, but I don't know whether they are related.) I'd keep mortality at the lowest amount possible and ramp up infectivity as much as possible. Then, when everyone was infected, I'd make my virus super-lethal. Everyone in the world was dead in a matter of days. Fun times. Completely unrealistic as far as evolution is concerned, but still fun.
  
  --
  My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
3. Re: Oh I've seen this before... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-02 10:03 · Score: 0
  
  Plagur inc?
4. Re:Oh I've seen this before... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-02 11:50 · Score: 0
  
  Getting severely off topic here, but in response to the parenthetical remark: yes, there is a tabletop game called Pandemic. It's not related at all: the tabletop game is all about a group of medical researchers (up to four) working together to discover cures for four diseases that are ravaging the world before one of several things happen: time runs out (you went through the deck of cards and didn't manage to get the cures); a disease rampages unchecked (you run out of cubes for a disease of a particular colour); or too many outbreaks of disease. Fun game, pure cooperative (unless you're playing one of the variations introduced in the "On the Brink" expansion; I've never played the "In the Lab" expansion so don't know how that changes the gameplay.)
5. Re:Oh I've seen this before... by tehdaemon · 2014-12-02 11:56 · Score: 1
  
  What you describe doesn't sound anything like the tabletop game.
  (Not knocking either game, I like the tabletop game)
  T
  
  --
  Laws are horrible moral guides, moral guides make even worse laws.
6. Re:Oh I've seen this before... by Nemyst · 2014-12-02 12:27 · Score: 1
  
  Obviously the problem with Plague Inc. (and Pandemic before that) is that it's a videogame. Hint: a virus does not spontaneously and simultaneously evolve in all of its hosts, as it does in the game. It also does not specifically target host death, because that is detrimental to its spread and is thus selected against.
All parasites aspire to be symbiotic by jd.schmidt · 2014-12-02 07:33 · Score: 5, Informative

Strange but true, at the end of the day all parasites are better off when they become symbiotic. There is no advantage to killing off your free meal, in fact your are better off lending a hand.
1. Re:All parasites aspire to be symbiotic by Registered+Coward+v2 · 2014-12-02 07:46 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Strange but true, at the end of the day all parasites are better off when they become symbiotic. There is no advantage to killing off your free meal, in fact your are better off lending a hand.
  depends on the parasite's life cycle. If they can only live within the host then become symbiotic, or at least not causing illness and death, is beneficial. If they only need the host for one part of their life cycle, such as wasps that use insects as a source of food of rhetoric larva; then killing the host is not a problem.
  
  --
  I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
2. Re:All parasites aspire to be symbiotic by jd.schmidt · 2014-12-02 08:54 · Score: 1
  
  Well, kind off, I admit to overstating my case. None the less even carnivores, which of course eat their prey, can still have a symbiotic relationship with another species. In addition, recent research seems to indicate HIV and Ebola are recent mutations and basically maladapted viruses. Well adapted organisms tend to a beneficial equilibrium.
3. Re:All parasites aspire to be symbiotic by jd.schmidt · 2014-12-02 09:09 · Score: 1
  
  Actually one reason I bring this up is I have wondered if one way to prevent many diseases is to ensure the ecological niche they want to take is already occupied by a much more benign organism. So it would simply be harder for the pest to gain a foothold in the first place. Probably not totally particle with viruses, they are inherently predatory on cells, but maybe bacteria...
4. Re:All parasites aspire to be symbiotic by micahraleigh · 2014-12-02 09:48 · Score: 1
  
  >> ... then killing the host is not a problem.
  
  Depends on whose perspective you are talking about there ...
5. Re:All parasites aspire to be symbiotic by penandpaper · 2014-12-02 11:09 · Score: 1
  
  Think of the children! err, larva.
6. Re:All parasites aspire to be symbiotic by micahraleigh · 2014-12-03 08:50 · Score: 1
  
  lol :)
Re:Evolution? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-02 07:34 · Score: 2, Insightful

So far more than half the comments are as fucking stupid as this. I don't know why I even bother reading here anymore.
Shush... by Flavianoep · 2014-12-02 07:39 · Score: 3, Funny

Shh! Don't get this kind of information beyond the sphere of well informed people. Some people may think that risky sex behavior becoming less dangerous is a thing.

--
Linux is for people who don't mind RTFM.
1. Re:Shush... by Opportunist · 2014-12-02 08:26 · Score: 1
  
  Hush! Stop meddling with Darwin's plan!
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Re:Evolution? by ArcadeMan · 2014-12-02 07:50 · Score: 1, Informative

You're probably like a lot of readers, who now only read Slashdot for the cultural reference replies, the snarky replies or to find comfort in reading other comments with the same views as your owns.
And let's not forget the trolls and the pointless personal attacks, you stupid brain-dead half-wit redneck moron bastard.

--
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
disease progression has a genetic component by madbrain · 2014-12-02 07:59 · Score: 5, Interesting

I'm somewhat skeptical here. From my very small n=2 study, my husband and myself, infected the same year in 2006 (we both had HIV negative and positive tests that same year) with the same virus, as evidenced by genotype mutations test, I can tell you that my husband progressed from HIV to AIDS in less than a year, and had to go on antiretrovirals right away, whereas I didn't need medication for years and chose to remain without them for 4 years. I was in HIV controller studies. There was no change to my immune system on paper. But I was very tired, and I later chose to go on meds anyway. I had to drop out of the studies for this reason. I don't know what came of them. We are of different ethnicity - I am of caucasian and middle eastern descent; while my husband is asian; so our genetic are probably quite different.
It seems to me that this difference in disease progression between countries may have less to do with the virus itself evolving than it does with people's immune systems and genome evolving and becoming better able to deal with the virus.

--
-- Julien Pierre http://www.madbrain.com/blog
1. Re:disease progression has a genetic component by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-02 08:22 · Score: 0
  
  May things go well for you both, ad infinitum.
2. Re:disease progression has a genetic component by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-02 12:15 · Score: 0
  
  So, let me repeat for emphasis. You thing humans genome is evolving faster than a virus...
  Thinking is not one of your strong points. Still you got modded up because people are pulling for you. Hopefully you can live a reasonable life and not suffer.
3. Re:disease progression has a genetic component by Nemyst · 2014-12-02 12:29 · Score: 1
  
  You're right it's about genetics, but you got it the wrong way around. What's much more likely is that your immune systems were already very different and the strain you were infected with was more able to defeat your husband's immune system than yours. The virus was therefore more specialized, as the article says.
4. Re:disease progression has a genetic component by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-02 14:09 · Score: 0
  
  I'd be more interested in why a married couple would be getting tested so often as twice in one year, was husband "getting it on the downlow" (e.g. gay sex on the side)?
5. Re:disease progression has a genetic component by madbrain · 2014-12-02 14:20 · Score: 1
  
  Yes; but we were infected with identical virus. The difference in disease progression was due to our genetics, not the virus mutating.
  
  --
  -- Julien Pierre http://www.madbrain.com/blog
6. Re:disease progression has a genetic component by madbrain · 2014-12-02 14:21 · Score: 1
  
  Firstable, we are a married gay couple. There was no one getting on the down low. We weren't married back then, though, hence the tests.
  I'm not going to elaborate any more with an AC, though.
  
  --
  -- Julien Pierre http://www.madbrain.com/blog
7. Re:disease progression has a genetic component by madbrain · 2014-12-02 14:22 · Score: 1
  
  Spelling is also not one of your strong points, AC.
  
  --
  -- Julien Pierre http://www.madbrain.com/blog
8. Re:disease progression has a genetic component by madbrain · 2014-12-02 14:25 · Score: 1
  
  Thank you. Our doc says I will likely live a normal lifespan as long as I'm on meds.
  It's anyone's guess what "normal" means.I'm kind of skeptical given my dad passed of pancreatic cancer at 67.
  My husband might be at a bit more of a disadvantage given early AIDS diagnosis. However, he also started meds much earlier than me and that could counterbalance things. I still have about 300-400 more tcells than he does, but we don't know how many either of us had before HIV so hard to conclude anything from that. We are both in the normal range - he is on the lower end of the range; though.
  
  --
  -- Julien Pierre http://www.madbrain.com/blog
9. Re:disease progression has a genetic component by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-02 21:16 · Score: 0
  
  I am white, and luckily was never infected. I lived for two years with a gf that we found out at the end of the first year she had HIV. She was black, and seemed somewhat resistant, besides being always tired.I also pushed my luck sometime after with someone of mixed race who knew she was infected and tried to get pregnant from me and later on deliberately infect me asking me to have sex during the night in the middle of her period *for us to stay together*, and escaped unscathed. I put 2+2 together, and the "pills" she said she was taking were antiretrovirals, not anticonceptives. Either I have some sort of immunity, or the pills she was taking saved me. And having that twice, there is a strong possibility the first one was lying to me all along. I caught on too many lies of her, and too serious.
10. Re:disease progression has a genetic component by madbrain · 2014-12-03 12:15 · Score: 1
  
  If she was taking antiretrovirals and maintaining an undetectable viral load in her blood, you were not at risk of getting infected with HIV .
  http://www.natap.org/2013/HIVw...
  
  --
  -- Julien Pierre http://www.madbrain.com/blog
11. Re:disease progression has a genetic component by badkarmadayaccount · 2014-12-06 23:22 · Score: 1
  
  There was some Finnish biotech company working on gene therapy for HIV, i hope they through trials faster. Best of luck to both of you.
  
  --
  I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
Noob move there, HIV by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-02 08:04 · Score: 1

It's way too late in the game to buy down your Visibility at this point. It's bad enough you didn't get Madagascar.
This doesn't sound right by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-02 08:33 · Score: 0

The virus is slowing down in its ability to cause disease and that will help contribute to elimination.
Wouldn't being asymptomatic but contagious increase the spread of a virus rather than eliminate it?
Re:Evolution? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-02 09:00 · Score: 0

Sarcasm mixed with parody and irony is one of the better recipes for moderation horror.
More like devolution ... by micahraleigh · 2014-12-02 09:47 · Score: 1

Doesn't this suggest things fall apart?

If so, is the court system going to censor this due to the establishment clause?

Because I heard somewhere criticism of evolution is basically forcing someone into religion.
sigh by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-02 10:06 · Score: 1

HIV was never harmful to begin with. I guess this is the way science is going to handle this scandal?
"Oh, HIV will magically mutate into something harmless! That's why the disease model is wrong! Not because it was a lie all along!"
1. Re:sigh by mi · 2014-12-02 10:19 · Score: 2
  
  "Oh, HIV will magically mutate into something harmless! That's why the disease model is wrong! Not because it was a lie all along!"
  That was my first thought too. Though I don't have enough education to have an opinion on this matter myself, I do know one biologist, who once argued rather adamantly, that there is no (sufficiently) credible evidence of HIV causing AIDS...
  This new study would certainly provide a good way for the established scientists — who sneered and jeered at people expressing similar skepticism — to save their faces... Curiously, the two links cited in that Wikipedia article as "proof" of causality, state only that there is a "belief", the causality exists...
  
  --
  In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
2. Re:sigh by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-02 12:32 · Score: 0
  
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_effect
  The same thing happened with Penicillin, they do a few studies that show promise, announce how great it is, then when people start to use it on a large scale it doesn't work as great due to [insert excuse=resistance].
3. Re:sigh by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-02 21:19 · Score: 0
  
  There were theories it was the first round of too aggressive medication that were the true cause what is now as AIDS. Wether they are true or not, we will never know, I guess.
4. Re:sigh by dave420 · 2014-12-02 21:26 · Score: 1
  
  Your entire posting history makes sense now. Thanks for removing any doubt.
5. Re:sigh by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-03 03:07 · Score: 0
  
  Your post history shows apk making you "run, forrest: RUN!!!" again today http://news.slashdot.org/comme...
6. Re:sigh by mi · 2014-12-03 06:38 · Score: 0
  
  Your entire posting history makes sense now.
  Thankfully, a person, who'd choose to attack the speaker, rather than the content of the speech, removes all doubts about himself with a single utterance — no need to study his other communications at all.
  
  --
  In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Outrageous fraud... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-02 11:00 · Score: 1

This is just unbelievable - the same scammers who claimed that a harmless retrovirus was the cause of 20 plus diseases, and different diseases in gay men, women, Africans, non-Africans, etc. are now conveniently telling us that the 'deadly virus' is 'less deadly'...
LOL. If AIDS was caused by a sexually transmitted virus, then why aren't millions of heterosexual westerners dying every year from it, seeing as all REAL STDs are increasing every year, and have been for decades?
There is no such thing as an 'HIV test' (the test insert itself tells you that it doesn't test for the presence or absence of HIV), the 'Western Blot' test is a total and utter fraud, giving completely different results for the same samples, and the 'anti-HIV' drugs are deadly and kill people - who we are then told died from 'AIDS'.
But don't believe me, try researching it for yourself. For a change.
1. Re:Outrageous fraud... by rochrist · 2014-12-03 04:17 · Score: 1
  
  Try not being anonymous, coward.
AIDS is your immune system's fault by etinin · 2014-12-02 12:30 · Score: 1

Some people have been commenting about the huge differences between time of AIDS-onset in different HIV-infected individuals. What makes your immune system better at controlling HIV is your MHC capacity for presenting the antigens. The viral antigens have mutated to i) avoid triggering an immune response so it won't be well degraded in the first place, that happens by avoiding inflammatory pathogen associated molecular patterns (gp120 bings to a crappy receptor called DC-SIGN); ii) not fit well in most people's MHC cleft's, meaning that even when the pathogen is properly degraded, if you don't have good affinity with the MHC cleft, you won't be able to mount a good response based on T lymphocytes. The item II is what usually impacts the viral fitness in clinical practice. People with the same promiscuous MHC clefts which can cause autoimmune diseases are the ones who are usually slow developers. Since they can mount a good cellular response from the start, they will easilly get rid of most copies of the virus. What will be left will usually be the ones who have had mutations so big that they will not only not fit in the MHC cleft but they also won't bind well with CD4 or the correceptors. I've taken an extreme case, but this will happen in people with standard MHC`s who mount a standard answer. Also, the interesting thing about elite developers is that they don't mount the standard cytotoxic response which is expected against viruses. The dominant answer will be based on a novel type of T CD8+ nicknamed non-cytotoxic (duh) lymphocyte. These will, instead of killing the infected CD4+ lymphocytes, secrete anti-viral factors which will stall the virus reproduction. Another interesting example which shows that many diseases which we have are less harmful than our immune response. In this case, killing the infected cells means killing the own cells which will keep your immune system working, so it's a terrible idea, since the virus evolves faster, changing the antigens very fast while our immune system takes too long to mount a specific response. you will eventually suffer from immune exhaustion and that's AIDS.

--
"I decided I could write something better than everything out there in two weeks. And I was right." - Linus Torvalds
Acid laced joint. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-02 13:41 · Score: 0

He was in a really dark place when he was orchestrating those events.
Then those damn hipster goths became a thing and he decided dark wasn't cool anymore so he wrote the New Testament to be all PLUR and shit until like Fallen Apostates came and like corrupted his message man!
Have fun....for now by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-02 17:06 · Score: 0

Media and entertainment sector people may now rejoice. They can sin with impunity with lessening health consequences. That is, until the Füçkdeath virus or something worse comes about.
Blood Donation is Not Casual. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-02 20:41 · Score: 0

News of the featured article coincides this week with news that the gay community is agitating to repeal the ban on blood donation by MSM participants (men who have sex with men, aka, gay men). The workers in blood donation centers all wear protective gear - gloves, coats and plastic full-length face masks. But what about me, the donor? I don't get any protective gear whatsoever (except a band-aid at the end). During the process, the blood donation puncture (an open wound) is completely exposed. All that is required for me to be infected is for another donor to bleed on me. And just so you understand the risk, I see someone else's free-flowing blood during every visit. It is not uncommon for a person sitting/standing/walking near me to literally dribble blood uncontrolled onto the floor, anywhere either inside or outside the donation center. Some readers may be inclined to start screeching "Phobia!!!" But is that cool? Among other things, the blood I donate goes to treat people with immune deficiencies. I would not be surprised if immune deficiency patients are walking around with literally my blood in their veins. The gay community receives enormous taxpayer largesse in the form of HIV research and abatement from the wealthiest nations on Earth. Maybe they should just leave well enough alone. Or, perhaps we should just ask, how long will it be before some other virus evolves, and we are faced with a new generation of Ryan White?
1. Re:Blood Donation is Not Casual. by ruir · 2014-12-02 21:05 · Score: 1
  
  I have not donated blood for well over a decade, but I surely not recall people handling me like in a lab.
Good, now we can resume not using condoms... by ruir · 2014-12-02 21:03 · Score: 1

And comments like the title are stupid. Most people do not use condoms. Serial "monogamous" people when entering a new relation start doing it without checking the others background. There are some that are more risky prone and do not use them even in one night stands or with their friends with benefits that have probably a couple of other special "friends". Hell, right there in Africa they do not care about condoms, and do not even have the money to buy them (spending half of their monthly salary in condoms? Good luck with that).
1. Re:Good, now we can resume not using condoms... by righteousness · 2014-12-02 21:43 · Score: 1
  
  I am proud to say that I have never used condoms.
  
  --
  Don't fornicate. Seriously, just don't do it.
2. Re:Good, now we can resume not using condoms... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-03 02:56 · Score: 0
  
  Good for you...have you ever been with a woman? I do not need condoms with my 5 fingers too.
3. Re:Good, now we can resume not using condoms... by righteousness · 2014-12-03 03:40 · Score: 1
  
  You should get married like I did so you can have sex without ever needing to wear condoms.
  
  --
  Don't fornicate. Seriously, just don't do it.
4. Re:Good, now we can resume not using condoms... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-03 08:19 · Score: 0
  
  Sorry, I am not a nutso prude american who believes in imaginary friends. I had a civil marriage, but before that I "experimented"...a LOT.
HIV Dating with Connecting HIV Singles by LolaSykes · 2014-12-03 06:51 · Score: 1

Connect With Local HIV Singles for Safe dating with HIV Www.PositiveSingle.Us
Its already harmless by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-03 11:10 · Score: 0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTxvmKHYajQ
Good news: selenium and HIV. by rs79 · 2014-12-03 12:53 · Score: 1

"Some virologists suggest the virus may eventually become "almost harmless" as it continues to evolve"
It would be harmless if the virus did not encode for a homologue of the human lipid peroxidase inhibitor glutathione peroxidase. See Keshen's disease (China).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K...
What they say might be happening but what *also* would explain that (and they did not check, a simple serum selenium test would differentiate) is:
Bloomberg news 2013:
"... selenium for two years were able to delay their need for antiretroviral therapies by about half compared with those given a placebo, according to research published in the Journal of the American Medical Association. The study followed 878 HIV-infected adults from Botswana, a nation with one of the highest rates of infection of the AIDS virus."
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/...
(they need to read Fosters papers, B, C and E boost the immune system but it's Tryptophan, Glutamine and Cysteine that the virus encodes for and strips from the body)
Summary:
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/Aidsan...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...
Watch these -
Theory:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Case study:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Then read his (free) book:
http://www.soilandhealth.org/0...
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/cont...
See also:
http://www.doctoryourself.com/...
http://aras.ab.ca/articles/rfw...
http://www.fosterhealth.ca/nut...
Also:
1. Foster HD. How HIV-1 causes AIDS: Implications for prevention and treatment," Medical Hypotheses, Vol. 62(4), p 549-553, 2004.
2. Foster HD. What really causes AIDS. Victoria, BC: Trafford, 2002. Free download at www.hdfoster.com .
For further reading:
"HIV/AIDS: a nutrient deficiency disease," Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine, 2005, Vol. 20(2), p 67-69.
Environmental factors and the pathogenesis of selenium-CD-4 cell tailspin in AIDS. Chinese Journal of AIDS and STD, Vol. 10(5), p 390-392,402 2004.
AIDS and the selenium-CD4T cell tailspin," World Journal of Infection, Vol. 3(6), p 456-459, 2003.
Micronutrients in pathogenesis and treatment of AIDS," Foreign Medical Sciences: Section of Medgeography, Vol. 24(2), p 49-53, 2003.
Why HIV-1 has diffused so much more rapidly in Sub-Saharan Africa than in North America. Medical Hypotheses, Vol. 60(4), p 611-614, 2003.
"How HIV-1 kills: Implications for the treatment and prevention of AIDS. Townsend Letter for Doctors and Patients, No. 255, p 76-78, 2002.
"Aids and the 'selenium - CD4T cell tailspin': the geography of a pandemic," Townsend Letter for Doctors and Patients, No. 209, p 94-99, 2000.

--
Need Mercedes parts ?
1. Re:Good news: selenium and HIV. by rs79 · 2014-12-03 21:24 · Score: 1
  
  More details and additoinal references are provided here: http://rs79.vrx.net/works/essa...
  
  --
  Need Mercedes parts ?