Slashdot Mirror


Researchers Claim Success In Removing HIV From Living Cells (nature.com)

ffkom writes: A recent publication from German researchers claims success in removing the HI-Virus from living cells, showing a way to completely cure AIDS rather than just suppressing its symptoms (by lowering the amount of viruses) by permanent medication: "Current combination antiretroviral therapies (cART) efficiently suppress HIV-1 reproduction in humans, but the virus persists as integrated proviral reservoirs in small numbers of cells. To generate an antiviral agent capable of eradicating the provirus from infected cells, we employed 145 cycles of substrate-linked directed evolution to evolve a recombinase (Brec1) that site-specifically recognizes a 34-bp sequence present in the long terminal repeats (LTRs) of the majority of the clinically relevant HIV-1 strains and subtypes. Brec1 efficiently, precisely and safely removes the integrated provirus from infected cells and is efficacious on clinical HIV-1 isolates in vitro and in vivo, including in mice humanized with patient-derived cells. Our data suggest that Brec1 has potential for clinical application as a curative HIV-1 therapy." Clinical trials are expected to start in Hamburg, Germany, soon.

107 comments

  1. Sharing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Magic Johnson decided to share the cure

  2. HIV articles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Are like battery/solar power articles. The best battery/HIV cure is just 2 years away. Always. But it never happens.

    1. Re:HIV articles by Z80a · · Score: 1

      Well, could be worse, like solar roadway articles.

    2. Re:HIV articles by ArylAkamov · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Pretty much. I remember hearing about a possible cure for aids years ago, researchers claimed it worked in mice and it was months away from human testing.

      Never saw another word about it. It would be nice if they would at least say why it didn't work in humans instead of MASSIVE HYPE and then nothing.

    3. Re: HIV articles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. That shit does happen. A lot.
      About one in 10 successful lab tests works in animals and of those, about one in 10 will actually work in humans. Think it's not worth publishing of something works in mice?

    4. Re:HIV articles by DamonHD · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not all research works out. Research is hard. If it wasn't then it would be a risk. If you only want finished products then camp out in a Apple store and stop reading Slashdot. This type of entitled whining is very very dull and adults should avoid it.

      I'm running a research project right now. Guess what, bits of it aren't working as expected, but some of those failures are actually interesting and may save someone else a bunch of trouble.

      Damon

      --
      http://m.earth.org.uk/
    5. Re:HIV articles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      He's not complaining that the research didn't work out, rather that there's never any followup as to why not. Like you said, some of the failures are actually interesting, and it'd be great to hear about them.

    6. Re:HIV articles by ElRabbit · · Score: 3, Funny

      Like they say in the article, it's pure marketing that the thing could be used on humans. The real goal is to cure mice from any known disease, have them live forever and make them take over the world tonight.

    7. Re:HIV articles by tigersha · · Score: 1

      Well, at least it is better than controlled thermonuclear fusion. That is always 25 years away.

      --
      The dangers of excessive individualism are nothing compared to the oppressiveness of excessive collectivism
    8. Re:HIV articles by GuB-42 · · Score: 1

      We didn't find a cure to HIV, however, people can now live with it. It is not the death sentence it used to be.
      Like with batteries and solar power, things have improved a lot. It is just that it happened gradually so people didn't notice.

    9. Re: HIV articles by opus_magnum · · Score: 2

      Yes. That shit does happen. A lot. About one in 10 successful lab tests works in animals and of those, about one in 10 will actually work in humans. Think it's not worth publishing of something works in mice?

      On the other hand, how does one find out about treatments that work on humans but not on mice?

    10. Re:HIV articles by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 2

      Are like battery/solar power articles. The best battery/HIV cure is just 2 years away. Always. But it never happens.

      Could be worse it could be like fusion

      --

      Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

    11. Re:HIV articles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We have controlled thermonuclear fusion, it's called a H-bomb. Perhaps you are referring to fusion power?

    12. Re:HIV articles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is there some user called MDFudgePacker shilling for HIV Research?

    13. Re:HIV articles by dave420 · · Score: 2

      If he read the actual literature on the topic he'd be fine. Getting one's scientific information from the mainstream media is not very wise.

    14. Re: HIV articles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your example is an example of an uncontrolled reaction.

    15. Re:HIV articles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We didn't find a cure to HIV, however, people can now live with it. It is not the death sentence it used to be.
      Like with batteries and solar power, things have improved a lot. It is just that it happened gradually so people didn't notice.

      Another one that takes progress for granted. It's never garanteed, dude. The ground can open up under your feet at any time.

    16. Re:HIV articles by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Don't say that too often, you'll end up messing up the experiment and the mice will be both mad and get their revenge.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    17. Re:HIV articles by KGIII · · Score: 1

      I dunno? Is it really any better if it's 2 years away instead of 30? I'm reminded of that song by Annie... "It's always a day away."

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    18. Re:HIV articles by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      We probably do need a better human analog for this kind of research. I can't help but wonder how many potential cures have been missed because the initial tests on mice failed where they would have had at least some degree of success on a human, with only a little modification to perfect it.

    19. Re:HIV articles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There was one group working to produce inbred lines of Pygmy Marmoset for exactly this reason. Unfortunately, it will probably be several generations of researchers before they come into common use, due to intellectual inertia, etc.

    20. Re:HIV articles by Beezlebub33 · · Score: 1

      And, yet, solar prices have dropped dramatically and the number of installations is growing dramatically. Batteries have been getting better / cheaper.

      And treatment for HIV is getting better, people are living longer, we keep learning more and more. Most experimental things never make it to the real world. However, the real world is better more and more solar / battery / HIV treatments, so your whining is stupid and pointless, and wrong.

      --
      The more people I meet, the better I like my dog.
    21. Re: HIV articles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Won't someone think of the HIV positive mice?

    22. Re:HIV articles by Beezlebub33 · · Score: 1

      It's not being taken for granted, dumbass. At this point, it's history. Battery / solar / HIV treatments have gotten dramatically better. Yes, slowly; yes, gradually; yes, every improvement has been hard fought. It's not guaranteed to get even better, but only idiots think that it will get better instantly or without effort.

      --
      The more people I meet, the better I like my dog.
    23. Re:HIV articles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I used to work in research biology (was called a genetic engineer) and let me just comment that months away from human testing may mean months away from starting human testing. Such starts involve mostly paperwork, review of test plan, securing funding, and asking for review. It doesn't mean that they didn't start, but it does mean that they aren't always months away from starting. Besides, even if they started, they would still be years away from verifying the results or understanding the possible side effects (which are critical considering some major historical medical mishaps where waiting to understand side effects was effectively skipped).

      So take all "forward looking statements" presented by the media with a grain of salt, as they are all written by people who came up the ranks from writing primarily advertising material (my guess, from having a brother work at a newspaper, ads are how they keep the doors open).

    24. Re: HIV articles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed, we should reintroduce human testing. I hear you volunteer?

    25. Re:HIV articles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Apparently there's a breed of sheep in Scotland that has like 75% human DNA. Nobody's sure how they managed it; those Scottish scientists are brilliant!

    26. Re:HIV articles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about "Magic" Johnson and the theory of cure is reserved for the top 100 people in every nation?

      My point is: I thinks the cure has been already happened; it's just that it is not ready for mass scale deployment. Right?

    27. Re: HIV articles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod up plus six funny

    28. Re:HIV articles by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Credit where it's due.

      That was an international effort. Scotland, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand and Rolla Missouri all deserve some credit.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    29. Re: HIV articles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's simple they Scottish fucked the sheep's

    30. Re:HIV articles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are like battery/solar power articles. The best battery/HIV cure is just 2 years away. Always. But it never happens.

      Yes, that's why everyone's phone battery still dies after 40 minutes of talk time, like they all have since the 90's. Electric cars still aren't even close to feasible... Oh, and the human race is on the verge of extinction from AIDS because no improved treatments have ever made it to market...

  3. Zombie Movies by IntentionalStance · · Score: 3, Funny

    Don't most of them start with a discovery like this. Just saying.

    1. Re:Zombie Movies by bosef1 · · Score: 1

      There was also that ST:TNG episode where the crew devolved.

    2. Re:Zombie Movies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There was also that ST:TNG episode where the crew devolved.

      The one where the "Retrovirus" turned Deanna Troi into some sort of amphibian, Data's cat into an iguana and Worf into some odd venomous Klingon Ho's beast? that was probably the "Spock's Brain" of the Next Generation episodes.. and that would never happen without a lot of very specific gene editing , the mechanisms that would be required to make that happen do not exist in a specie's DNA.

    3. Re:Zombie Movies by MightyMartian · · Score: 3, Funny

      We're talking about a show where the technobabble frequently was little more than Geordy announcing "a concentrated tachyon beam tuned to the right frequency will yada yada yada...", with Data piping in "There's a 72.3% probability that that will blah blah blah and blow us all up", with Riker just rolling his eyes and thinking "I know this gig pays well, but...", and Picard finally saying "Make it so. I'll be in my quarters, but inform me immediately when yada yada yada makes blah blah blah happen." Troi, of course, will simple stand there looking like she just pinched a loaf in her form fitting stretch one piece body suit, while Dr. Crusher goes down to sickbay to deal with the inevitable injuries and psychoses brought on by the inevitable yada yada yadaing.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    4. Re:Zombie Movies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It depends on in what way that's actually the "Spock's Brain" of TNG episodes. That was almost certainly the worst episode of TOS. TNG had some truly bad episodes, the worst of which is almost certainly the second season finale, "Shades of Gray." I'd say that's actually worse than "Spock's Brain" in just about every way. TNG's "Unnatural Selection" was along the same lines and was pretty awful. Genetically engineered humans have an exceptional immune system that actively attacks pathogens by genetically altering them to cause rapid aging. The transporter is used to cure Dr. Pulaski and the others affected by the rapid aging. It was totally ridiculous and truly awful. The one you're thinking of was "Genesis," which was also unrealistic and pretty bad.

    5. Re:Zombie Movies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed, I pretty much despise TNG. I've rewatched a good portion of it, TOS, and DS9. It seemed like TOS was largely about the relationship between the three main characters (Kirk, Spock, and McCoy) and how they used cleverness and reasoning to get out of some nasty situations. TOS had some lousy episodes, especially in the third season when NBC slashed the budget, but it wasn't full of technobabble. The characters are the best in any of the ST series, and I mean all of the characters. DS9 had a bit of technobabble but it was more about war, religion, social issues, and economic issues. It didn't feel as much about the technology, and I mostly enjoyed it. It was pretty good, and I liked a lot of the characters. Odo didn't do much for me, but I really liked both Siskos and Quark was awesome. TNG, however, was pretty awful. Data was actually a decent character, in many respects that series' version of Spock, except he wants to be more human. Spock would do hard math and quote probabilities instantly, so Data was clearly modeled after him. I liked Geordi for the most part, but maybe it's because I grew up watching LeVar Burton on Reading Rainbow. Worf was cool, too. Otherwise, I didn't like the cast and thought there was far too much technobabble in the stories. I don't see why nerds like TNG so much. I really like TOS and I think DS9 is pretty good. Otherwise, I think Star Trek pretty much sucks.

    6. Re:Zombie Movies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you grew up with Levar on reading rainbow, then that means you're too young to grasp the amazing risk Fox took bringing Star Trek back to the small screen, with a whole new cast set decades after the original series. It had been a long time since any sci fi show was on tv, and geek glommed on to it like a newborn kangaroo to its momma's teat. The first episode was terrible, but it was amazing because it was Trek! And it was sci fi!

    7. Re:Zombie Movies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It depends on in what way that's actually the "Spock's Brain" of TNG episodes. That was almost certainly the worst episode of TOS. TNG had some truly bad episodes, the worst of which is almost certainly the second season finale, "Shades of Gray." I'd say that's actually worse than "Spock's Brain" in just about every way. TNG's "Unnatural Selection" was along the same lines and was pretty awful. Genetically engineered humans have an exceptional immune system that actively attacks pathogens by genetically altering them to cause rapid aging. The transporter is used to cure Dr. Pulaski and the others affected by the rapid aging. It was totally ridiculous and truly awful. The one you're thinking of was "Genesis," which was also unrealistic and pretty bad.

      Oh well , not every episode can be "City on the Edge of Forever" or in the TNG episodes, "Best of both worlds" part 1 and 2. As for other bad TOS episodes non need look further than the last one before the cancellation, where Kirk was trapped in a woman's body while his body was taken over by some woman with a severe case of penis envy. Bad, Bad, Bad! Sadly TNG had an episode almost like it where Data and O'Brien and Troi were taken over by ghosts of people from a crashed starship on some random planet.. same plot, still shit.

      Back to the point though, You cannot introduce a single change into a genome and get a bunch of humanoids turning into different species all with random genetic traits from different species all together.. IE "De-Evolving". The very idea smacks of intelligent design. Evolution is a "Blind Watchmaker". Always has been, yet you still see scientists turing around and saying idiotic things like "We wonder why Evolution did this.. what problem it was trying to solve when it introduced this evolutionary change to the species.. and what advantage it gave the species." Spoiler alert! It didn't have an "intent" when the random mutation happened to the individual or group that had the random mutation that made it to the germ-line and became an adaptation when it happened to confer a survival advantage on the group with the new genetic trait. Even the idea of something propagating because it was a survival advantage that became "sexy" to the subsequent generations is out the window when it becomes a genetic trait that does not become a "Phenotype" that has noticeable outward manifestations that generally appear after reproductive age has passed. (Think male pattern baldness) These mutations and diseases happen when they happen and are propagated by animals that will fuck and keep fucking because that is what animals with sex organs do. (That would be a Geico commercial if it were not for the F-Word!) Evolution is driven by chance and has no censor and no over-arching purpose. The only rules are cause and effect.

      Run along and play now kids.

    8. Re:Zombie Movies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm a big fan of Star Trek, my favorites are TNG (I plan to watch the remastered version) and ENT. I also plan to watch the community made spinoffs.

      I don't mind the technobabble, as long as it is relevant to the story, but sometimes the writers seem to use it when its not really needed.

      TOS: my least favorite, mostly due to the bad acting and outdated effects. I remember one episode in particular where they used a black cat as some kind of alien monster. I don't hate Shatner, but I don't think he is a good actor. Nimoy on the other hand was awesome.

      TNG: had some really good stories, and Stewart is an incredible actor. My favorite, or one of my favorites, but I would remove Whoopie Goldberg and some of the Sherlock Holmes crap.

      DS9: I didn't like the first few episodes with the religious crap, but I learned to like this series and in the end I was loving it. The last few season with the war were excellent! I also remember the episode where they go back in time to TOS' Trouble with Tribbles, it was amazing how they inserted the new characters into the old footage. Acting and effects were good.

      VOY: some episodes were good, others not so much. I really liked the doctor, Tuvok and Seven characters, but not the captain (the acting was decent though). I didn't like the holodeck episodes so much, I guess I'm not into those.

      ENT: Tied with TNG as my favorite, absolutely great! I guess the fact that its so recent has a lot to do with this. The only problem is its so short, I don't understand why it was discontinued, I wouldn't mind watching 5 more seasons. They could have developed the whole "time war" thing further. At least many loopholes in the whole Star Trek were closed, for example: why the Klingons looked like indians in TOS and aliens in TNG. But I think they introduced another loophole: in TOS humans meet the Romulan for the first time, but they had already met in ENT.

      I hope to see a new Star Trek series soon.

    9. Re:Zombie Movies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same AC who you replied to...

      TOS: I agree about Shatner's acting; he seemed to overdo the acting in a lot of scenes. He's still my favorite of the captains, though. Nimoy was great and so was Kelley. Those guys had a great chemistry and were great actors. TOS had some technobabble and perhaps the least realistic science of any of the series. But I can relate a lot more to the characters and how they solve the problems they encounter. It has its issues but it's my favorite. The remastered version updated the effects and they're a big improvement.

      TNG: Minus "Q Who," "The Neutral Zone," and a few other episodes, the first two seasons were pretty bad IMO. They tried to match TOS too closely, to the point that they brought on Dr. Pulaski to have a similar relationship to Data as McCoy had with Spock. It didn't work at all. Stewart is awesome, and I like Burton as well. The later seasons were better than the first two, but I don't enjoy it like TOS. There are still some good stories, but I didn't much like Riker, Troi, Wesley (sorry clevernickname), Beverly, or Guinan. In "Q Who," Q warns that the Federation is expanding rapidly into areas of the galaxy with great wonders and horrors. I wish they had explored this more beyond the Borg stories. I thought some creativity was lacking.

      DS9: It started slow, but it really grew on me over time. The acting was outstanding and the effects were good, I agree. The first couple of seasons felt a bit slow but I thought the last five were outstanding.

      VOY: I had high hopes for this series. They're in a strange part of the galaxy and there was really an opportunity to be creative about exploring a completely uncharted part of the galaxy. I liked Tuvok and Neelix, in particular. Despite much criticism, I actually liked Kes and wish she had stayed around. I thought the writers could have been really imaginative about what strange things are out in the Delta Quadrant. Instead, a lot of the stories seemed to focus on the crew and the Borg, which seems like a wasted opportunity. Don't get me wrong, Scorpion was really good, but I didn't care for the later Borg stories.

      ENT: VOY disappointed me so I never really watched ENT. Maybe I should give it a chance. I do like Scott Bakula and think he's outstanding on NCIS NOLA. After seeing VOY, I just didn't think ST could come up with something fresh and entertaining. Perhaps I was wrong.

      I've liked many of the fanmade productions I've seen on Youtube, especially Star Trek Continues. I hope for good things from the new series. I just hope it's not in the Abrams timeline and I hope it's more imaginative and fresh.

    10. Re:Zombie Movies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same AC here too.

      After all this discussion I decided to watch the whole thing again from the beginning, including TOS (remastered of course). But I will skip the cartoons. Never seen them, but I can't imagine them being any good.

      I forgot about Kelley, he was great! I agree on your comment about the chemestry between those characters, I would be surprised if it was like that off-screen too. Perhaps I was a bit harsh with TOS (and VOY for that matter).

      I think some of the episodes with Q were just ridiculous. The whole series would have been better without Q, or with a different Q: less silly and less powerful. It just passed my acceptable level of science vs fantasy.

      Like I said before, I rarely like the stories that involve the holodeck, but VOY is an exception (I'm thinking the ones happening in a small town, not the ones with the black/white movies, those sucked).

      You have to give ENT a chance. For starters, it was shot in widescreen, the effects are good and its the missing connection between now and that (hopefully) future of galaxy exploration.

      I just realized how much I like talking about Star Trek. I'm starting to feel like one of those women that can't stop talking about their cats.

    11. Re:Zombie Movies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep.
      It was awesome, too.

    12. Re:Zombie Movies by KGIII · · Score: 1

      > specie's

      I know this is off-topic but is that correct English? Err... I'm a bit unusual in that I actually enjoy the grammar tweakers (though I think they may want to lay off the meth) so... If one of you happen to have an opinion on this, that'd be awesome.

      I'm thinking it's 'species' but then I realize that this mix of Latin and English is gonna only end up hurting my brain. So, my brain is old and feeble and avoiding damage is good and I'll just defer to someone else on this.

      And, seeing as I'm off-topic enough already, it'd be damned nice if we could just defrag our brain. It appears to be a proprietary file system. It's non-journaled and has no reliable error correction. It does have an interesting hierarchy but I think it's difficult to index so the resulting search is a mess. I could almost go for a low-level reformat and then re-imaging from backups. Try as I might, I'm looking at the word and thinking it's right but horribly wrong at the same time - I can find no help with that Google thing.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    13. Re:Zombie Movies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and they stay that way: a movie =]

    14. Re:Zombie Movies by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      I'm still a big fan of TOS, and the best Trek movies are still the TOS movies. The middle seasons of TNG were tolerable, but the beginning and the end seasons were dismal affairs. DS9 started out shaky, but found its own in the later seasons. The less said about Voyager and Enterprise, the shows that killed Star Trek, the better.

      In the end, TOS just simply had the more challenging storylines. Even Shatner did a great job; daring handsome smart space captain, what else could you want. I didn't even mind the paper machet boulders and "devices" that were sometimes made out of unusual salt and pepper shakers. Even an episode with special effects as bad as The Doomsday Device had such a great storyline and such good acting that the special effects fade away. If all you're thinking about is how dubious the special effects are, then a fair portion of the Twilight Zone episodes, and a considerable number of older movies would be unwatchable. Christ, in the Wizard of Oz, you can see where the set ends and the scenery paintings begin, and yet it remains probably the most watched film in history.

      The problem with TNG in large part was that they never really got the cast to gel. I like Patrick Stewart, and he did his job pretty well. Indeed, I thought they all did their jobs well, but there was never the sense of camaraderie that one got from TOS. The reality was that what made TOS great wasn't so much Roddenberry as it was Gene L. Coons, who created a lot of the backstory like the Prime Directive, did a lot of work on the scripts to bring out the relationships between the three main characters, and in many ways turned Roddenberry's skeleton into a living breathing thing. A lot of what we think of as Star Trek came directly from Coon's imagination, and Shatner was right that he was the unsung hero of Star Trek. But there was no one like that in the later ST series, and TNG was a lot blander for it.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    15. Re:Zombie Movies by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      In the end, TOS just simply had the more challenging storylines.

      Uhh.. TNG episodes..
      "Measure of a Man"
      "Yesterday's Enterprise"
      the one where Picard lives another entire life (when the gets the flute)..

    16. Re:Zombie Movies by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      It could be ether trek or sci fi. It can't be both.

      Trek was a soap opera/western/court drama.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  4. Replicants by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Next we'll have Nexus 6 replicants.

  5. Sharpen your pitchforks, hippie moms by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 0

    This is genetic engineering tech, applied to humans. Are you now going to require that all the HIV patients using this treatment wear labels? You know, the scarlet letter of the left.

    1. Re:Sharpen your pitchforks, hippie moms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People fear that which they do not understand. In an earlier day for our species, such fear kept us alive. Today, we are transitioning to a new, more intelligent, state of being. As such, we will struggle with the inappropriate application of our formerly-useful instincts.

      Insulting and acting arrogant doesn't win their minds, whereas encouraging and supporting their education might.

    2. Re:Sharpen your pitchforks, hippie moms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People fear that which they do not understand.

      Like most aphorisms, it's good food for thought and it's generally not true.

    3. Re: Sharpen your pitchforks, hippie moms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fear can take many forms; denial for instance.

    4. Re:Sharpen your pitchforks, hippie moms by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      "Insulting and acting arrogant doesn't win their minds"

      What minds?

    5. Re:Sharpen your pitchforks, hippie moms by KGIII · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure how to articulate this but I beg to differ.

      I do not think we're more intelligent today than we were "back then." We have access to more information, that is true. If you think you're more intelligent, how about we take away your modern amenities, strip you naked, and put you into the woods fifty miles from civilization - and you stay there for a year. We'll even give you some flint. Hell, you can even take up to six more mature adults but for every adult you must bring .5 (rounded up) children and for every 3 mature adults you must bring one elderly person (rounded up, of course).

      You're not one of those folks who are egotistical enough to think we're at the apex of understanding, correct, or at the pinnacle of morality, or are you? If so, I'd encourage you to look at history and note that we've pretty much always thought we were at that pinnacle. At some point, and for a long time, our best and brightest - our dedicated scientists, believed in the four humors or phlogiston. I'll give you the benefit of doubt and assume you're not so naive as to think we're certainly correct with our current understanding. It's a little rough on the ego but all, literally all, of history tells us that we're probably still just as incorrect as they were.

      At any rate, it's difficult to articulate for me. I'm thinking the word hubris belongs in there somewhere. I've no pithy sayings, good analogies, or even a few concise terms to use as descriptors.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    6. Re:Sharpen your pitchforks, hippie moms by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      I'm really tired of having the term 'hubris' wheeled out for every advance in engineering, in this case the engineering of the human body. A new technique like this is hardly something we're just blundering into without thought. Based on our knowledge today, which is vastly greater than it was in your cited golden age, we take whatever precautions we reasonably can as a part of making the next bold step.

      Call it hubris if you want, but adventure is part of human nature, and I'll gladly spend some of my karma ridiculing those who prefer primitivism to a better civilization.

    7. Re:Sharpen your pitchforks, hippie moms by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Well, in my defense, look at how it was used... I'm not really sure how to articulate it more clearly. It's also important that you note what it is in response to. Taken out of context (which it seems to have been) really changes the tone. I don't know if you read at >0 or not but there's an AC post that it is in response to.

      Unless, of course, you think we're at the apex of knowledge, correct, and the epitome of morality? In which case, I'd suggest an ego check. Every single person in the past has felt the same as you do. There's every reason to believe that, in 200 years, we'll look back at today's science and think about how our current scientists have stood on the shoulders of giants and how silly and wrong we were back then.

      If that's not what you believe then I'm not sure what to tell you? I think it will be great and that they'll be standing on those shoulders and doing great things. All evidence points to my being correct in my presumptions. Go back just 200 years and look at the state of science at that time. Now imagine 200 years in the future. Do you really think we're that much more intelligent today? No, I don't mean have access to more information - or more work already completed for us. Do you really think we're that much more intelligent?

      I do not believe we are. I've even heard a reasonable argument that we're less intelligent now than we've ever been. We might be better at passing tests, that's true. What we do have, however, is greater availability of information. We've got vast bodies of work to use and build on. But I don't think we're more intelligent. Not in any significant manner. I'm not so egotistical as to believe that I'm the evolutionary end, the epitome of intellect, nor the pillar of morality. In fact, I'd go so far as to suggest that I'm no such thing and that in 200 years my beliefs will be scoffed at, my intelligence mocked, and my accomplishments rendered trivial. I'm actually okay with that.

      The AC seems to think we're at some transition. I disagree. I think we're steadily trending upward while our amassed work increases on a logarithmic scale. I'm certainly not somehow against this sort of advance in engineering. I'm not even sure how that one could be against it? I'm actually kind of confused as to why you might think I am against bio-engineering? I'm wondering if I didn't articulate it clearly or if you're reading into it more than what I said? I am many things, but against bio-engineering is not one of those things.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  6. Hopefully It Really Works by nateman1352 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If this actually works it could be one of the most important advances in human medicine for decades. Hopefully it actually works and isn't the typical vaporware HIV cure.

    1. Re:Hopefully It Really Works by DamonHD · · Score: 1

      Agreed.

      Generally I had thought from way back when I did some genetics that killing the host cell was the only way to root out such integrated virii, but I'm not sure what's going on here: I must read TFA properly.

      Rgds

      Damon

      --
      http://m.earth.org.uk/
    2. Re:Hopefully It Really Works by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The plural of virus is viruses.

    3. Re:Hopefully It Really Works by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If this actually works it could be one of the most important advances in human medicine for decades.

      Gee, nateman, do you really think so?

      **eye roll**

      Jeez, mods. How is this comment "Interesting"?

    4. Re:Hopefully It Really Works by eth1 · · Score: 1

      If this actually works it could be one of the most important advances in human medicine for decades. Hopefully it actually works and isn't the typical vaporware HIV cure.

      Yeah... given that, AFAIK, humanity's record with curing viruses is Humans: 0, Viruses: everything, going to Humans: 1, Viruses: (everything-1) would be a pretty big deal, regardless of the virus involved.

    5. Re:Hopefully It Really Works by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're correcting someone who signs his posts like it's Usenet (save your breath).

  7. Other resident viruses? by bosef1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I haven't even RTFA yet, but I was wondering if this could have applications with other viruses that become long-term residents of the body. I'm thinking of things in the herpes family like... herpes, or chickenpox / shingles. The trick with most of these is long-term, mostly-dormant viruses hiding in the cells. If you can wake them up, the immune system can clear them, but they are effectively hidden inside the cells while quiescent.

    1. Re:Other resident viruses? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I haven't even RTFA yet, but I was wondering if this could have applications with other viruses that become long-term residents of the body. I'm thinking of things in the herpes family like... herpes, or chickenpox / shingles. The trick with most of these is long-term, mostly-dormant viruses hiding in the cells. If you can wake them up, the immune system can clear them, but they are effectively hidden inside the cells while quiescent.

      What you are proposing sounds possible, but we are at the early stage of research, the stage where peer review is needed per the "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", otherwise this is just a claim without proof.

      If this works, we would see Charlie Sheen cured, but he has claimed on Doctor OZ that he was HIV negative already due to his medication and healthy living.. and that is an extraordinary claim in need of extraordinary evidence. I think that given his past behavior, it is likely that Charlie is off his meds again.

      See how this works?

    2. Re:Other resident viruses? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doubtful that this would. Even from the synopsis it recognizes some chemical properties unique to the HIV virus. However maybe a similar thing could be found for Herpes with hide in nerve cells with poor blood flow. Harder for drugs to find it.

    3. Re:Other resident viruses? by dsmatthews9379 · · Score: 2

      And cancers too perhaps, "site-specifically recognizes a ... sequence".

    4. Re:Other resident viruses? by kinko · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I haven't even RTFA yet, but I was wondering if this could have applications with other viruses that become long-term residents of the body. I'm thinking of things in the herpes family like... herpes, or chickenpox / shingles. The trick with most of these is long-term, mostly-dormant viruses hiding in the cells. If you can wake them up, the immune system can clear them, but they are effectively hidden inside the cells while quiescent.

      HIV is a "retrovirus", which means the the virus's DNA integrates into the host's DNA. Some other viruses do this, but I think most don't. Some are more interesting, eg EBV is a virus from the herpes family which infects several different tissue types, and we know it can integrate into human DNA inside white blood cells, but I don't think there's proof that it can integrate inside liver or stomach cells.

      As a retrovirus, the HIV sequence successfully breaks into a cell, then breaks into the cell's nucleus, then into one of the nucleus' chromosomes. (This is obviously harder to detect than viruses that stay inside the cell's cytoplasm, or that enter the nucleus but stay apart as their own episome [mini-chromosome].) That's what the article is referring to when they say their method recognises a 34-base pair long sequence - it is recognising that piece of the viral sequence in our own chromosome, and then uses something to snip out enough of the viral sequence that it can no longer make new copies of itself.

      Obviously you want to be careful with any therapy that involves cutting up bits of human chromosomes... :)

    5. Re:Other resident viruses? by Gaygirlie · · Score: 4, Informative

      They have just recently tried removing cancer via modified cells, forcing the immune-system to remove the cancer-cells: http://arstechnica.com/science...

      There are some downsides to this at the moment, but they are trying to perfect the technique. The takeout that someone should take from this, however, is that the researchers have shown it's possible to create a "vaccine" against certain kinds of cancers -- that is a MAJOR fucking step forward.

    6. Re:Other resident viruses? by ffkom · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I am pretty sure we'll see more attempts on removing also other retro viruses from living human cells, if only because techniques like CRISPR/CAS9 have recently made "live editing" of genes so much more feasible.

      Along with curing hereditary diseases, this is the obvious "good use case" for editing the genome in living humans.

      I'm sure elsewhere in the world, researchers are also already working on the obvious "evil use cases", like breeding gene-doped athletes, unscrupulous soldiers, will-less slaves etc..

    7. Re:Other resident viruses? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      will-less genetically enhanced sex slaves? i am in.

    8. Re:Other resident viruses? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure elsewhere in the world, researchers are also already working on the obvious "evil use cases", like breeding gene-doped athletes, unscrupulous soldiers, will-less slaves etc..

      Maybe even republicans!!

  8. Good news, everyone! by Provocateur · · Score: 0

    N/T

    --
    WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
  9. Are you sure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are you sure that it's not North Korea that said this?

  10. How long... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    until the common cold is a thing of the past?

  11. Re:Oh this will never fly! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You under estimate [Greed].. remember Gordon Geekco [Greed is Good].. hence it will be expensive.. but made.. then burn itself out.. and will become an Orphan drug/treatment. The technique is novel however.. that they used humanized mice for testing makes it seem even more "real".

  12. Re:And now... by Sax+Russell+5449D29A · · Score: 1

    Could be, but that's not to say there's not an immense effort to find a cure. That's going to be one for the history books, a Nobel prize or two and whatnot.

    --
    -SR
  13. Only 88% by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    Only 88% of HIV are affected by this change. So not to be Debbie Downer, but as it is now, all this would do is change which strain is the most prevalent. 88% isn't good enough; Hell, 99.99% isn't good enough, as 'Life finds a way' (as far as viruses can be considered alive).

  14. Re: So Many by JadeBurton · · Score: 0

    You can climb up onto your moral high horse and suggest that people get what they deserve. Or you can help people who need it, even when you don't have to. It's called not being an asshole. And if you can't do that, at least acknowledge that healthcare costs for everyone would drop if a cure was found, so it would still benefit you.

  15. Re:Oh this will never fly! by dave420 · · Score: 1

    In countries with single-payer healthcare this is nowhere near as much of a problem...

  16. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good by PeterM+from+Berkeley · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Gotta disagree with you saying that 88% isn't good enough.

    1) If current measures are reducing transmission of HIV to R values (new cases per existing case) of something like 1.2 or lower, this could bring it below the threshold of being able to increase in numbers and thus speed eradication.

    2) If 88% of CURRENT HIV+ are completely cured, drugs and resources saved can be concentrated on the remaining 12%, thus reducing R values even further, speeding eradication.

    3) 88% cure rate is a pretty massive reduction in human suffering, isn't it?

    --PM

    1. Re:Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On your first point, not quite, because this is a selective 88% and not a random 88%. Meaning that it has no effect on the R values of the 12% that it doesn't cure. Regarding the second point, it's an interesting open question: If we lowered the infection level by 88% without changing the R value, would current technologies prevent the amount of spread that happened 30-40 years ago from happening again? Maybe, maybe not. Regarding the third point, sure, why not--but there are lots of potentially curable disabilities out there, and one ought to apply a heartless cost-benefit analysis.

  17. Re:And now... by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 2

    It would be interesting to see if this method might be effective for other chronic viral infections, such as rabies or hepatitis infections that were found after symptoms began showing up where it's too late for vaccination.

  18. Re: So Many by StrangeBrew · · Score: 0

    Not to mention the AC hypocrite likely is also a frequent visitor to pornhub and has no problem watching a man's penis in a woman's anus, and deams of being able to duplicate the experience with his own sexual partner.

  19. Re: So Many by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    HIV is part of a larger problem called being irresponsible. 98% of all social welfare spending is due to people being irresponsible.

    Unfortunately we all get saddled with the the expense, and spending on far better things suffers.

    Anyone who contracts AIDS these days did so knowing full well they were engaging in behavior that could lead to their predicament.

  20. Re:So Many by Beezlebub33 · · Score: 2

    1. You are incorrect about HIV transmission. In the US, yes, it _was_ largely a gay disease. It is not, and has not been, primarily about gay men for a long time now. In the places where it is most devastating (Africa), it has never been about men fucking each other in the ass.

    2. The time / money spent on a disease depends on many factors, and it's a limited pool so, yes, spending money on HIV means less for others. But:

    A. the effect of HIV worldwide has been huge, even compared to other diseases.

    B. What we learn about HIV can be applied to many other communicable diseases.

    --
    The more people I meet, the better I like my dog.
  21. Re: So Many by laurencetux · · Score: 1

    do yourself a favor and stay away from Nurses and or Doctors.

    Hint some folks get AIDS by way of needle sticks while they are trying to help folks.

  22. Re:So Many by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is it just me or does your average Slashdot user have a higher interest in curing AIDS than your average person?

    Maybe all those Mouth Breathers living in their mother's basements have a "partner"?

    Maybe they have a specific interest in seeing THIS disease cured?

    Just Wondering.

  23. Re: So Many by Sax+Russell+5449D29A · · Score: 1

    Remind yourself of that when your unfaithful spouse contracts you with HIV. Or when your kid gets it from a needle when he's going through his rebel years.

    If you don't want to live in a civilized society that takes care of everyone, maybe you should try moving over to Somalia. I heard they don't pay much taxes there and it's every man for himself.

    --
    -SR
  24. Re:Oh this will never fly! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh shut up you idiot. If it's anything like the hepatitis C drugs, they'll just charge a shitload for it. Trust me, the will for a researcher to win a nobel prize is greater than the greed of big pharma. Really.

  25. Re:So Many by micahraleigh · · Score: 1

    Don't forget drugs.

    I would rather the funds go into solving cancer (immunotherapy is closing in) or a common world wide problem like malaria or systemd

  26. Re:So Many by Beezlebub33 · · Score: 1

    Sorry I was unclear: Yes, you are correct about the US. Most HIV positive people are males homosexuals, and that has not changed.

    Looking at the world, it is not and has not been about gay men. Look at: https://www.avert.org/professi... . Most are in sub-Saharan Africa. Almost 5% of the population there is a carrier.

    --
    The more people I meet, the better I like my dog.
  27. Re: So Many by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Less than 1%

  28. Re: So Many by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're some religious nutjob that would vote for Cruz, aren't you? Are you a Revelationist, too? Are you chomping at the bit for the End of the World? I got news for you, asshole (or cunt, as the case may be): If there was such a thing as 'god' (which there isn't, and if you had an IQ above 75, you'd have realized that about the same time you realized Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy aren't real either) you would be sent to Hell, not Heaven, because you are a hateful asshole. Luckily for Humanity there is no 'god', there is only us humans, and eventually, if we manage to not erradicate ourselves through war or global warming, we'll manage to breed your particular flavor of violently ignorant nonsense out of our genome, and finally, FINALLY be on the road to being truly Civilized and Sentient. Meanwhile we'll just have to keep up slapping idiotic losers like you down every single time you try to drag us back into the Dark Ages. Do us a favor, though: Go get yourself fixed before you pass on your defective genes to another generation of morons.

  29. Re: So Many by JazzLad · · Score: 1

    If only 1% punch me in the nose for being an ass, does it still hurt?

    --
    "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." - Every fascist, ever
  30. Why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let them assholes die

  31. how i got cured of hrepes virus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have been suffering from (HERPES SIMPLEX VIRUS) disease for the past four years and had constant pain, especially in my knees. During the first year,I had faith in God that i would be healed someday.This disease started circulating all over my body and i have been taking treatment from my doctor, few weeks ago i came on search on the internet if i could get any information concerning the prevention of this disease, on my search i saw a testimony of someone who has been healed from (Hepatitis B and Cancer) by this Man Dr JOSH and she also gave the email address of this man and advise we should contact him for any sickness that he would be of help, so i wrote to Dr. JOSH telling him about my (HERPES Virus) he told me not to worry that i was going to be cured!! hmm i never believed it,, well after all the procedures and remedy given to me by this man few weeks later i started experiencing changes all over me as the Dr assured me thati have cured,after some time i went to my doctor to confirmed if i have be finally healed behold it was TRUE, So friends my advise is if you have such sickness or any other at all you can email Dr JOSH drjoshhealingtemple@gmail.com or call him on +2349033455855

  32. How much will this cost? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This will be expensive.

  33. Re: So Many by MacGyverOfComputers · · Score: 1

    I am a Hemophilia A Severe Factor8 Deficiency, which my body has a defective Gene that causes my blood cells that come together to form clots and platelets to not have the hair like structures instructions to utilize or make clotting factor 8 and without a blood transfusion or the blood clotting medicine I will bleed to death, and In the 80s I was given infected clotting factor 8 that my doctor thinks I was infected by at the age of 5 and im 36 now, My immune system is Strong Virus Undetectable and its because I have a great Doctor, great pharmacy and the fact I am able to understand science on many level, I study. Biology,chemisty,physics,computer science and engineering, and I Am able to tell my doctors exactly how I feel and what medicine I need when I cant get to her office, due to the injuries I suffered at age 13 when I fell on my knees and it left my legs stuck in the sitting position and I am wheel chair bound. So to those who want to say people deserve it, I didnt do anything to get this infection. Think about what you say before making acusations.

    --
    Dustin J F