On an episode of The Shield, Vic Mackey's character says that the police have enough resources to solve any crime, but it's all a matter of their priorities. Obviously I don't know whether that's 100% true, and it isn't necessarily analogous to viruses and disease. It did get me thinking though...if you consider: 1) all of the money available for scientific research, 2) all of the brilliant scientists in the world, and 3) the fact that pharmaceuticals is a huge business...it seems quite possible that finding a cure is just a matter of priorities.

Now, in regard to #3, I don't really believe that "evil pharmaceutical companies" are containing the cure for HIV/AIDS simply to make money. People with HIV represent a tiny portion of the population, and it's a risk for everyone that likes sex, so purposely keeping the virus alive for minimal profit wouldn't make any sense.

Moving on, if HIV truly became an epidemic such that it was spreading around like a common cold, such that there was a major panic, and such that everyone was at risk, don't you think there would be enough pressure on scientists and pharmaceutical companies that they could figure out an affordable cure? Aren't cures often found by finding natural immunities within the population?

And this leads to the big ethical question: If you had HIV (or any serious, contagious, "incurable" virus), would you consider starting an epidemic in hopes of allowing a cure to be found? I mean, apparently there is an epidemic in parts of Africa, but just as I don't give a shit about dying people on a shitty continent, I doubt that the people who really have the power to fix that care either. If America or Britain or the EU or China started facing an epidemic on the other hand...what do you think?

I suspect that curing it is going to be very difficult.

Like some other viruses the particles aren't all in the blood at once, some are inside the target cells doing their thing (copying) and a bunch of others are hiding out somewhere in the body.
You'd have to be able to get all of them to cure it.

Starting an epidemic to try make a cure happen is a foolish gamble. It probably will remain incurable, so all that you'd be doing is getting a whole ton of regular people killed to save a minority who are often not worth saving.

In some countries people who are HIV positive must have the biohazard symbol tattooed onto them, something like that would probably help reduce infection rates, along with more widespread (and cheaper) testing.

I suspect that curing it is going to be very difficult.

Like some other viruses the particles aren't all in the blood at once, some are inside the target cells doing their thing (copying) and a bunch of others are hiding out somewhere in the body.
You'd have to be able to get all of them to cure it.

Starting an epidemic to try make a cure happen is a foolish gamble. It probably will remain incurable, so all that you'd be doing is getting a whole ton of regular people killed to save a minority who are often not worth saving.

In some countries people who are HIV positive must have the biohazard symbol tattooed onto them, something like that would probably help reduce infection rates, along with more widespread (and cheaper) testing.

Saying that they "aren't worth saving" is pretty ridiculous. We aren't just talking about drug addicts or reckless, uber-promiscuous homosexuals. At least 40% of those getting infected nowadays are "normal" heterosexuals, a small minority get it during birth, and some have picked it up accidentally. So, I mean...some of those that have gotten it might be described as pieces of shit, but many others (most?) are basically just unlucky "normal people".

Tattooing people really wouldn't do anything, as people can always find a way to hide such things. Besides, from a practical standpoint, I don't think people would take kindly to being "branded" and ultimately cast aside like that. If the priority was to get rid of HIV...then killing/quarantining the infected minority would make sense (and any such measures should have been done decades ago), but it's certainly not practical. As soon as word got out that HIV patients were being killed (or cast away, or anything of the sort), they would just begin infecting as many people as possible.

In any case, I think most would agree that the smarter solution is to find a cure for it. If I've got a grizzly bear in my yard that occasionally threatens to maul me, I'd rather just kill it than try to keep it locked outside forever.

Moving on...you mentioned the mechanics of the actual virus. Have any viruses similar to it been cured? That would probably be the biggest clue as to whether there's realistically a chance for a cure. I'd also be interested in genetic engineering and such. Maybe they could engineer a version of HIV that that was non-harmful to human DNA but would attack harmful HIV. (I don't know obviously...but my humble guess is that a cure might end up being something like that)

well, i think for every idea that we as a forum can come up with, scientists have probably already tried or are trying, from vaccines to flooding the body with a constant supply of white blood cells.

the thing is, most diseases are not "cured" the body gets rid of with the help of our white blood cells. HIV kills these cells, which is what makes them so deadly. it is actually relatively difficult to contract HIV. your white blood cells would kill most of them as they come in. but if the infection dose is large enough, your body gets overwhelmed.

the smallpox virus is an example of a disease that has been successfully defeated by humans, and comparing it to HIV, it is different in several ways, both scientfically and socially

1)smallpox is a lot more contagious, and i think it can spread through air and water. this means that it is harder to control, prompting world governments to work hard getting rid of it.
2)the effects of smallpox are more grotesque. again this makes world governments more aware and willing to stop it.

so because HIV is more controllable and easier to sweep under the rug, you would expect the world not to do as much when there are more pressing issues (economy, etc), but even if HIV was similar to smallpox,

3) it is difficult to see the effects of HIV, therefore, we cannot qurantine people effectively
4)there isnt a proper vaccine that works for HIV (i believe it to be due to rapid mutation), immunisation is difficult. working vaccines for pox type viruses have been known for at least a century before it was eradicated
5)the body, assuming the person doesnt die, will recover from smallpox. this isnt the case for HIV

Now, in regard to #3, I don't really believe that "evil pharmaceutical companies" are containing the cure for HIV/AIDS simply to make money. People with HIV represent a tiny portion of the population, and it's a risk for everyone that likes sex, so purposely keeping the virus alive for minimal profit wouldn't make any sense.

Only 0.6% of the global population may have it (2006 Report on the global AIDS epidemic), but seeing as they're stuck with it I'd put the "tiny portion of the population" comment into context.

And besides, with regard to everyone liking sex, I somehow doubt that the hobbies of directors from companies like GSK include sleeping with crackwhores and South African prostitutes.

Moving on, if HIV truly became an epidemic such that it was spreading around like a common cold, such that there was a major panic, and such that everyone was at risk, don't you think there would be enough pressure on scientists and pharmaceutical companies that they could figure out an affordable cure? Aren't cures often found by finding natural immunities within the population?

1) You don't "cure" viruses, you vaccinate against them.

2) HIV/AIDS is already officially classed as an epidemic:

"...all of us in the AIDS effort must be willing to back this. I am increasingly convinced that just expanding programmes, doing more, even much more, is not going to stop this epidemic."

- Peter Piot, Executive Director, UNAIDS

I think what you really mean is if HIV possessed the infectivity of the cold virus, which is something quite different. But yes, I think a viable vaccine would be developed a lot faster and the drug treatment for existing suffers rapidly improved.

I mean, apparently there is an epidemic in parts of Africa, but just as I don't give a shit about dying people on a shitty continent, I doubt that the people who really have the power to fix that care either.

Saying that they "aren't worth saving" is pretty ridiculous. We aren't just talking about drug addicts or reckless, uber-promiscuous homosexuals. At least 40% of those getting infected nowadays are "normal" heterosexuals, a small minority get it during birth, and some have picked it up accidentally. So, I mean...some of those that have gotten it might be described as pieces of shit, but many others (most?) are basically just unlucky "normal people".

And many of them are Africans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:HIV_Epidem.png), which you, even as a black man, "don't give a shit about".

So much for the brotherhood. Lol.

Maybe they could engineer a version of HIV that that was non-harmful to human DNA but would attack harmful HIV. (I don't know obviously...but my humble guess is that a cure might end up being something like that)

Sounds like something out of Resident Evil.

Entry inhibitors appear a more likely option.

Saying that they "aren't worth saving" is pretty ridiculous. We aren't just talking about drug addicts or reckless, uber-promiscuous homosexuals. At least 40% of those getting infected nowadays are "normal" heterosexuals, a small minority get it during birth, and some have picked it up accidentally. So, I mean...some of those that have gotten it might be described as pieces of shit, but many others (most?) are basically just unlucky "normal people".

Tattooing people really wouldn't do anything, as people can always find a way to hide such things. Besides, from a practical standpoint, I don't think people would take kindly to being "branded" and ultimately cast aside like that. If the priority was to get rid of HIV...then killing/quarantining the infected minority would make sense (and any such measures should have been done decades ago), but it's certainly not practical. As soon as word got out that HIV patients were being killed (or cast away, or anything of the sort), they would just begin infecting as many people as possible.

In any case, I think most would agree that the smarter solution is to find a cure for it. If I've got a grizzly bear in my yard that occasionally threatens to maul me, I'd rather just kill it than try to keep it locked outside forever.

Moving on...you mentioned the mechanics of the actual virus. Have any viruses similar to it been cured? That would probably be the biggest clue as to whether there's realistically a chance for a cure. I'd also be interested in genetic engineering and such. Maybe they could engineer a version of HIV that that was non-harmful to human DNA but would attack harmful HIV. (I don't know obviously...but my humble guess is that a cure might end up being something like that)

Some are not worth saving. Most infected are in Africa, which is a losing proposition.
It is unfortunate that so many new infections are of regular people, that is for sure.

The tattooing is done in some countries already, and it is placed on the same part of the body every time. No shit the infected ones would aim to wreck as many other lives as they could, that is what people do when things are truly hopeless.

Yeah it'd be great to cure it, the lessons learnt from doing that would help a shitload with other infections as well. It is hard to cure a disease like this, since it often takes ages for any signs of infection to show up. Once someone's twigged that they're infected it's often too late (unless they're one of the few people who get tested regularly).

According to the guy who taught genomics at my university the human organism has old bits of DNA left over from an epidemic millions of years ago. The human genome actually contains the gene for Reverse Transcriptase (the enzyme that allows HIV to copy itself). If you wanted to wait for resistances to develop that would take too long, no one wants to put up with the huge amount of deaths required for that to happen today, not to mention that the resistance to the virus would only apply for a small segment of the population, so a second epidemic could easily surface.

The virus doesn't harm your DNA, it uses your cells (in this case the important ones) to copy itself, and to assemble new structural proteins to store the new copies of its genome. Genetic engineering could provide some new answers, but I'm not sure how that could be done. I'm not really 'in the know' about HIV (in a useful way), so feel free to look up information and correct me if you find anything good.

There is medicine in the Western World that keep HIV, HIV and don't let it develop to AIDS. That said, indeed the most ad hoc method of destroying HIV is to quarentine all the infected and preventing them from spreading the decease. Purposeful infection of someone else should then be punishable by death, sentence to be caried out upon discovery.

I'm not really afraid of HIV because I'm not stupid. I'd never fuck a crackwhore, I'm not homosexual and I don't do drugs and I only date girls of good nature. Someone would have to purposfully infect me with a dirty needle or something, which would trigger a world of hurt upon them from me.

There is medicine in the Western World that keep HIV, HIV and don't let it develop to AIDS. That said, indeed the most ad hoc method of destroying HIV is to quarentine all the infected and preventing them from spreading the decease. Purposeful infection of someone else should then be punishable by death, sentence to be caried out upon discovery.

I'm not really afraid of HIV because I'm not stupid. I'd never fuck a crackwhore, I'm not homosexual and I don't do drugs and I only date girls of good nature. Someone would have to purposfully infect me with a dirty needle or something, which would trigger a world of hurt upon them from me.

That or a botched blood transfusion. Or one of your 'girls of good nature' turned out to have it without knowing.

Even if you are extremely promiscuous it's not an easy disease to contract though, so in the end it really comes down to probabilities, not intelligence. All you can do is reduce your chances to almost nothing.

Really though, purposeful infection would be harder to prosecute than rape. It wouldn't even make a dent in the numbers. The only kind of quarantine that would make any sort of difference would involve forced testing of the entire population, including everyone entering the country, and that's just not constitutional.

Honestly I don't think anyone here including myself knows enough about biology to begin thinking about how a drug to cure HIV would work. The stuff you read about that sort of thing is very much dumbed down, to the point where there is no information widely available that you can make realistic conclusions from (besides just repeating what's been said already).

I'm not really afraid of HIV because I'm not stupid. I'd never fuck a crackwhore, I'm not homosexual and I don't do drugs and I only date girls of good nature. Someone would have to purposfully infect me with a dirty needle or something, which would trigger a world of hurt upon them from me.

accidents can happen, and taking revenge on the dude (if you actually know who it is, and successfully deliver an asswooping) wont reverse the effects

accidents can happen, and taking revenge on the dude (if you actually know who it is, and successfully deliver an asswooping) wont reverse the effects

My very cruel revenge would make me feel better. Knowing that he's gonna be in a world of pain and die anyways I have to make this special. I'm just a guy who likes to take revenge on people. Besides what would you do if it happened to you?

Existing drugs still leave the person infectious.

You can get it from regular people, they can be infectious before they even know they have it. They could've screwed someone of questionable character before you, and so a seemingly good person can infect you.

I agree revenge won't cure you, but it'll feel good and you'll prevent whoever infected you from infecting anyone else. That's a good enough reason to do it in my book. If I got something like HIV I probably wouldn't be around for long anyway.

back to the tattooing option, I think a small tattoo under the bikini line could work quite well for both halting infections and giving the people the privacy they deserve

if you avoid women like i do, you kill like 50 birds with one stone

if you avoid women like i do, you kill like 50 birds with one stone

I think that being gay is quite counterproductive on this matter.

The virus doesn't harm your DNA, it uses your cells (in this case the important ones) to copy itself, and to assemble new structural proteins to store the new copies of its genome. Genetic engineering could provide some new answers, but I'm not sure how that could be done. I'm not really 'in the know' about HIV (in a useful way), so feel free to look up information and correct me if you find anything good.

HIV integrates it's genome into the host cells DNA. This means it can replicate with the cell without actually making more copies of its virion.

There is natural immunity to HIV within the population, people with a deletion in a specific receptor that HIV uses to enter cells have resistance to the virus. This has been known for a while, but there was a recent paper published where they took immune cells from a human and engineered that deletion into the receptor gene, they then grew up a bunch of these cells and injected them into a mouse and looked for resistance to the virus... Or something like that...not my field.

Here's the article:
http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v26/n7/full/nbt1410.html

http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v26/n7/full/nbt1410.html

I want to subscribe to Nature Biotechnology

Only if Real.PUA wants to pay for it.

Only if Real.PUA wants to pay for it.

http://rapidshare.com/files/151299216/nbt1410.pdf.html

Scientists created aids to kill fags

There is natural immunity to HIV within the population, people with a deletion in a specific receptor that HIV uses to enter cells have resistance to the virus. This has been known for a while, but there was a recent paper published where they took immune cells from a human and engineered that deletion into the receptor gene, they then grew up a bunch of these cells and injected them into a mouse and looked for resistance to the virus... Or something like that...not my field.

Here's the article:
http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v26/n7/full/nbt1410.html

Sounds cool.
Sounds like spreading that amongst the population would be a good idea.

Again with tattooing, the mark should be a bit more visible than that. I'd hate to catch HIV by resuscitating someone or something of that nature.

the police have enough resources to solve any crime, but it's all a matter of their priorities.

the police have enough resources to solve any crime, but it's all a matter of their priorities.

I lawled. Have you been watching Season 7? It kicks ass.

I lawled. Have you been watching Season 7? It kicks ass.
Unfortunately, no. I have a pretty hardcore workload for school, and Tuesdays are unavoidable for homework. I am torrenting them, but I haven't had the chance to watch those either.

the police have enough resources to solve any crime, but it's all a matter of their priorities.

Apples, oranges and pinecones mate.

A cure for HIV could have catastrophic results. The HIV virus could respond very aggressively to it, and mutate into something far more dangerous. I think researchers are trying to rule this out by 100% before rolling it out to the public.

Just think of people dying from the flu because the virus became immune to antibiotics.

http://www.drabelson.com/PDF/Flu.pdf

Imagine that being HIV. We'd be fucked.

Just think of people dying from the flu because the virus became immune to antibiotics.

Antibiotics have no affect on viruses.

Antibiotics have no affect on viruses.

Yeah my bad. I meant to point out to people who try to cure the flu with antibiotics, and in the process raising the antibiotic resistance of unrelated bacteria.

the police have enough resources to solve any crime, but it's all a matter of their priorities.

http://kidicarus222.blogspot.com/uploaded_images/chief_wiggum_sarah_wiggum-726353.jpg

Here's the article:
http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v26/n7/full/nbt1410.html

Nice.
It would be a good idea to look at the other effects knocking out the receptor has on the immune system - I think CCR5 is involved in leukocyte activation? (Sorry, I'm not sure.) So there may some detrimental effects on the system, probably nothing near as bad as HIV but worth investigating. Or it could be used against some autoimmune diseases - rheumatoid arthritis, perhaps? That would be awesome - kill two birds with one stone and you could be looking at more funding.

Couple this approach though with something like a gp120 inhibitor or mimic as a a backup and I think the virus would have a tough time making any progress.

Well, you have to look at the progress made in treating HIV/AIDS since it's discovery. Back in the 80s, if you got HIV, it was a straight up death sentence. You would be lucky as hell to get three years.

Nowadays, people with HIV can live relatively normal, albeit shorter, lives. Look at Magic Johnson, he's had it for the longest time. Have you seen that dude lately? He looks better than most former basketball players who don't have AIDS.

But, I just don't understand why they don't quarantine people who have it. They could potentially completely eliminate the disease, if they made HIV testing mandatory, you get tested for it twice a year, and if you get it, you go to an island where you live with other people who have the disease. You would just live out a normal life on this island, get a job, maybe meet a partner, and you can get the best medical treatment possible for the rest of your life.

I sound kind of cruel, to just exile people with HIV, but if I got it, I would voluntarily go to this place. Because I don't think anybody should have to get HIV/AIDS, and anybody who's gone through that would understand and hope to do their part in eliminating it.

A cure for HIV could have catastrophic results. The HIV virus could respond very aggressively to it, and mutate into something far more dangerous. I think researchers are trying to rule this out by 100% before rolling it out to the public.

Just think of people dying from the flu because the virus became immune to antibiotics.

http://www.drabelson.com/PDF/Flu.pdf

Imagine that being HIV. We'd be fucked.

What do you mean by more dangerous?

If it causes it to infect faster and kill much quicker the virus will self limit. That'd mean there would be a lower number of people needing treatment.

Curing HIV is most likely out of the question, we still can't cure polio, or herpes, or the common cold, or hepatitis.

Development of a vaccine is much more likely and our best hope for stopping HIV/AIDS.

And quarantine is a horrible attack on civil liberties. It is a largely preventable disease. We have to rely on people taking personal responsibility and making the right choices. And we need to make sure people have the information to make the right choices.

I know many people will say "The information is out there, you have to be stupid to get it." Yet many people are ignorant on the subject.

Curing HIV is most likely out of the question, we still can't cure polio, or herpes, or the common cold, or hepatitis.

Development of a vaccine is much more likely and our best hope for stopping HIV/AIDS.


He or she is right; curing HIV, as is curing the common cold, is out of the question. For the exact same reasons.

HIV is a constantly evolving virus; a strain that you have differs from what the man over in apartment 24A has. Vaccines, through years of research, are available - however, they do no good. By the time a vaccine could be discovered, the virus would have already evolved enough so that the vaccine is unable to be utilized. Same thing with the cold, or flu. The flu vaccine, however, does not so rapidly change - approximately once a year a new strain makes its way from overseas, which is why we are allowed to get flu vaccinations - approximately once a year. In the future, should we be able to tailor vaccines for each person with HIV, within a relatively short amount of time (days, weeks?), then a cure could be attainable, at however high a cost.

Just my two cents, and I've probably screwed up a lot of this information. What I remember from biology.

He or she is right; curing HIV, as is curing the common cold, is out of the question. For the exact same reasons.

HIV is a constantly evolving virus; a strain that you have differs from what the man over in apartment 24A has. Vaccines, through years of research, are available - however, they do no good. By the time a vaccine could be discovered, the virus would have already evolved enough so that the vaccine is unable to be utilized.

Same thing with the cold, or flu. The flu vaccine, however, does not so rapidly change - approximately once a year a new strain makes its way from overseas, which is why we are allowed to get flu vaccinations - approximately once a year.

I guess you haven't heard of the latest flu vaccine (http://www.ox.ac.uk/media/news_releases_for_journalists/050908.html)trials.

In the future, should we be able to tailor vaccines for each person with HIV, within a relatively short amount of time (days, weeks?), then a cure could be attainable, at however high a cost.

If the person already has HIV then it's a bit late for a vaccination...

A cure for HIV could have catastrophic results. The HIV virus could respond very aggressively to it, and mutate into something far more dangerous. I think researchers are trying to rule this out by 100% before rolling it out to the public.

Just think of people dying from the flu because the virus became immune to antibiotics.

http://www.drabelson.com/PDF/Flu.pdf

Imagine that being HIV. We'd be fucked. The flu VIRUS cannot be treated with antibiotics. Antibiotics do not work for viral infections,only bacterial infections. Certain bacterial infections can become immune to antibiotics when the treatment is cut short by the patient because they feel better.

I'm confused here, why do we want to cure AIDS. I think AIDS is a great tool for reducing the worlds population. There aren't too many innocent victims when it comes to AIDS. Most are druggies and people who have unprotected sex with each other. Idiots, the virus targets idiots. The number of people born with it, who catch it through blood transfusions, or who are rape victims, is pretty small. Everyone else pretty much just fucked without condoms, and it serves them right.

Here in Canada, you do actually go to jail for not disclosing that you have AIDS to partners. Actually, if you know you have any STD and give it to someone, you can be charged with aggravated sexual assault, and manslaughter if they die. We also have a system where if any partner of yours catches something, they can anonymously give health Canada your name and they call you and tell you to come in for testing.

In the community I live, AIDS is pretty much unheard of, but I still use condoms. Before engaging in any skin on skin, and I want to see STD test results. I'm sure the girls I fuck are very clean, but I don't take chances.

Nobody mentioned this, but if you're circumcised you have a much lower risk of catching AIDS.

Also, they already know how to cure AIDS. They can do it by using recombinant DNA and use something similar to the virus itself to attack and remove the AIDS DNA from your cells. Basically just reverse engineering the AIDS virus. Since we never say any kind of progression to the AIDS virus, I'm thinking this is a Bio weapon, and they likely had the cure before it was even released in Africa. They probably created both of them at the same time in the same labs.

I'm confused here, why do we want to cure AIDS. I think AIDS is a great tool for reducing the worlds population. There aren't too many innocent victims when it comes to AIDS. Most are druggies and people who have unprotected sex with each other. Idiots, the virus targets idiots. The number of people born with it, who catch it through blood transfusions, or who are rape victims, is pretty small. Everyone else pretty much just fucked without condoms, and it serves them right.

...

Nobody mentioned this, but if you're circumcised you have a much lower risk of catching AIDS.
...
Also, they already know how to cure AIDS. They can do it by using recombinant DNA and use something similar to the virus itself to attack and remove the AIDS DNA from your cells.

*head explodes*

Also, they already know how to cure AIDS. They can do it by using recombinant DNA and use something similar to the virus itself to attack and remove the AIDS DNA from your cells. Basically just reverse engineering the AIDS virus. Since we never say any kind of progression to the AIDS virus, I'm thinking this is a Bio weapon, and they likely had the cure before it was even released in Africa. They probably created both of them at the same time in the same labs.

You should post this in Conspiracy.