Researchers Cure AIDS... not a joke.

[jAZ]

If I understand this correctly, they've basically cured AIDS by allowing HIV positive people to have full immune systems.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1020103343.htm

Researchers Knock Out HIV

ScienceDaily (Oct. 21, 2007) — With the latest advances in treatment, doctors have discovered that they can successfully neutralise the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). The so-called ‘combination therapy’ prevents HIV from mutating and spreading, allowing patients to rebuild their immune system to the same levels as the rest of the population.

To date, it represents the most significant treatment for patients suffering from HIV.

Professor Jens Lundgren from the University of Copenhagen, together with other members of the research group EuroSIDA, have conducted a study, which demonstrates that the immune system of all HIV-infected patients can be restored and normalised. The only stipulation is that patients begin and continue to follow their course of treatment.

HIV attacks the body’s ability to counteract viruses

Viruses are small organisms that have no independent metabolism. Consequently, when they enter the body they attack living cells and adopt their metabolism. The influenza virus occupies cells in the nose, throat and lungs; the mumps attaches itself to the salivary glands of the ear; while the Polio virus plays on the intestinal tract, blood and salivary glands. In all these instances, our immune system attacks and eliminates the invading virus.

HIV is so deadly because the virus attaches itself to a crucial part of the immune system itself: to the so-called CD4+T lymphocytes, which are white blood corpuscles that help the immune system to fight infections. The Hi-virus forms and invades new CD4+T-lymphocytes. Slowly but surely, the number of healthy CD4+T lymphocytes in the blood fall, while HIV relentlessly weakens the body’s ability to defend itself from infection. Finally, the immune system erodes to such an extent that the infected patient is diagnosed with AIDS. The Hi-virus mutates constantly as it forms and this is why, scientists face a constant battle to find a cure or a vaccine.

Combination therapy knocks out HIV

Combination therapy prevents the virus from forming and mutating in human beings. When the virus is halted in its progress, the number of healthy CD4+T cells begins to rise and patients, who would otherwise die from HIV, can now survive. The immune system is rejuvenated and is apparently able to normalise itself, providing that the combination therapy is maintained. The moment the immune system begins to improve, the HIV-infected patient can no longer be said to be suffering from an HIV infection or disease, already declining in strength.

Findings from the study are published in the medical journal The Lancet - Vol. 370, Issue 9585, 4 August 2007, Pages 407-413

Adapted from materials provided by University Of Copenhagen.

[Ebolapox]

Originally Posted by FAX

That makes sense, I suppose, Mr. H5N1. I probably have it wrong ... just recalled reading that, in certain portions of Europe, the plague was estimated to have eliminated up to 70% of the population. Probably a mistake on my part.

FAX

you're correct. overall, though (and this is highly subjective, as no hard census was taken prior to and after the last onset of plague), plague killed between 25% and 30% of the population of europe. obviously, certain areas were hit harder than others, but it took a devastating toll on europe.

remember, the mutation that has 'potentially' 'helped' these modern survivors of aids was a localized event. our bodies are constantly mutating, however most of the mutations are deleted and caught by our bodies. somehow, one or two slipped through the cracks in some local area in the 1300's and, 700 years down the road, it's become important.

[Donger]

Originally Posted by H5N1

I totally agree with you. we, as Homo sapiens tend to be risk seekers.

however, one of the fatal flaws of human beings is that we're incredible stupid, and not perfect. regardless of how one contracts AIDS, it's a tragedy (no human life should end that way). a cure would be wonderful, and perhaps lead the sinners to the zen-like state that you're obviously in, correct?

Nature's a bitch. I learned that at an early age and I've yet to see any explanation that is quite as succinct. Is it a tragedy that some junkie gets AIDS and dies? No, not in my opinion. It's a natural progression.

[Ebolapox]

Originally Posted by Donger

Yes, I know the definitions. However, AIDS is now classified as a pandemic, unless I'm mistaken. The third criteria is something like, "Spreads easily and sustainably between humans." That's highly subjective. HIV apparently spreads easily and sustainably between humans when they act with blatant stupidity and disregard for their own health, so do a lot of other things.

Part of me has always felt that the definitions of 'epidemic' and 'pandemic' should include a disclaimer: "Oh, and has to be relatively easy to catch." Last I checked, no one ever got AIDS by going to the movie theater and getting coughed upon.

yes, you're correct. AIDS is a pandemic (although the definitions of epidemic and pandemic are rudimentary to say the least).

as I said in my last post, we as human beings have an amazing knack for stupidity. we're both the most intelligent species on earth and the dumbest species on earth.

it's interesting you mention 'easy to catch' in regards to HIV/AIDS, I read somewhere that in the middle of the 90's, there was a moment when scientists believed that HIV had mutated beyond being simply an STD (which it still primarily is, ignoring transfusions and dirty needles), into an airborne pathogen (in other words, a virus that can spread via aerosol--via sneeze, like flu or the common cold). scary thought.

[Donger]

Originally Posted by H5N1

it's interesting you mention 'easy to catch' in regards to HIV/AIDS, I read somewhere that in the middle of the 90's, there was a moment when scientists believed that HIV had mutated beyond being simply an STD (which it still primarily is, ignoring transfusions and dirty needles), into an airborne pathogen (in other words, a virus that can spread via aerosol--via sneeze, like flu or the common cold). scary thought.

Yes, and it hasn't. If it did mutate and aerosolize, it would be a completely different animal. Since it has not, I do not think it qualifies as either an epidemic or pandemic. Hence, my statement.

[Halfcan]

One of my best friends died of Aids-it is a horrible way to go.

Thank God for a cure.

[Ebolapox]

Originally Posted by Donger

Nature's a bitch. I learned that at an early age and I've yet to see any explanation that is quite as succinct. Is it a tragedy that some junkie gets AIDS and dies? No, not in my opinion. It's a natural progression.

I can't argue with that. the part of me that's pursuing a career in the public health sector believes that everyone should have a chance to live their lives without having to worry about some super-bug killing them and their family. however, the logic in my brain states that we are the sum of every decision that we, as individuals, make. life IS a bitch. sometimes the dice come up snake-eyes.

but fucking up is nothing more than human nature. no matter how much more we evolve, there will be certain members of society who never amount to anything, make life-altering decisions, and die early deaths because of them. we'll never totally weed out these 'risk-takers' (although I almost don't call them that--it's too sterile), and I'm sure there will be two people having this same discussion in 100 years and/or 1000 years if we haven't killed ourselves off by then.

[Ebolapox]

Originally Posted by Donger

Yes, and it hasn't. If it did mutate and aerosolize, it would be a completely different animal. Since it has not, I do not think it qualifies as either an epidemic or pandemic. Hence, my statement.

it's a tough issue to slice, that's for sure. agree to disagree, I guess.

(just like the virus debate: alive or not alive? they meet most of the classical requirements, but not all).

the problem I have with issues involving human behavior in regards to public health is that life isn't white and black. the world we live in has a lot of gray areas, ones that allow for discussions like this, ones that even predicate both my responses and your responses.

[Donger]

Originally Posted by H5N1

I can't argue with that. the part of me that's pursuing a career in the public health sector believes that everyone should have a chance to live their lives without having to worry about some super-bug killing them and their family. however, the logic in my brain states that we are the sum of every decision that we, as individuals, make. life IS a bitch. sometimes the dice come up snake-eyes.

but fucking up is nothing more than human nature. no matter how much more we evolve, there will be certain members of society who never amount to anything, make life-altering decisions, and die early deaths because of them. we'll never totally weed out these 'risk-takers' (although I almost don't call them that--it's to sterile), and I'm sure there will be two people having this same discussion in 100 years and/or 1000 years if we haven't killed ourselves off by then.

I agree, if that 'super-bug' can get them without any fault of their own. The fact remains that, sans accidental exposure, you have to seek this virus out through risky behavior. If you contract it through risky behavior, so be it. I view it no differently than I do some guy deciding to go base jumping and his parachute not opening.

[Donger]

Originally Posted by H5N1

it's a tough issue to slice, that's for sure. agree to disagree, I guess.

(just like the virus debate: alive or not alive? they meet most of the classical requirements, but not all).

the problem I have with issues involving human behavior in regards to public health is that life isn't white and black. the world we live in has a lot of gray areas, ones that allow for discussions like this, ones that even predicate both my responses and your responses.

And one of the primary reasons that I didn't pursue a career in medicine.

[greg63]

Free, unprotected sex once again!

[Ebolapox]

Originally Posted by Donger

I agree, if that 'super-bug' can get them without any fault of their own. The fact remains that, sans accidental exposure, you have to seek this virus out through risky behavior. If you contract it through risky behavior, so be it. I view it no differently than I do some guy deciding to go base jumping and his parachute not opening.

dammit, misspelled 'too.'

I like to call these 'special' members of the gene-pool the shallow-enders. they tend to kill themselves off young, albeit not young enough (a lot of them reproduce, sometimes long enough to leave the example for their cursed offspring).

a decent example; my parents. not to put too much of my personal life on the board, but my parents are the best motivation I have for not ending up in the shallow end like they almost did. my dad and mom have been potheads their entire life, sometimes delving into more 'dangerous' drugs. according to popular psychology, I should never amount to anything. I grew up poor, and everything I have I earned with my two hands and two feet, as well as my brain.

it's the classical nature/nurture. vincent bugliosi and charles manson both have genius-level IQ's (within a few points of each other, IIRC). only difference: bugliosi grows up in an affluent neighborhood to parents who care for him, whereas manson never knows his father, is the son of a prostitute, shuttled from 'relative to relative,' and grows up a sociopath.

is it in the genetics? we don't know. there are those in manson's position that grow up to lead perfectly normal lives, even productive lives as contributers to their communities. there are those who grow up in bugliosi's shoes (jeffrey dahmer comes to mind) that end up possibly worse than manson.

the issue is that we have no clue where the line exists, or even if there IS a line to be drawn. gray area.

[Ebolapox]

Originally Posted by Donger

And one of the primary reasons that I didn't pursue a career in medicine.

it's a passion of mine (obviously, as you can see by a few of my posts)

to my misfortune, I guess

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Originally Posted by Bob Dole

They've had combination drug treatments that render the HIV viral load undetectable for years. Which in turn allows the immune system to "recover" to normal levels, thus "curing" AIDS.

Not true. HAART can drop your viral load to undetectable levels, but will only extend your life, not allow you to fully recover.

HIV will eventually develop resistances and mutations to the drugs in your system, and the drugs lose their efficacy over time.

This also assumes that you can afford said treatments which will cost upwards of 10K a year, unless you need salvage therapy from a fusion inhibitor, like Fuseon, which costs over 20K by itself.

Average lifespan is increased by about 8-10 years if on the cocktail, but it is by no means a cure all.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Originally Posted by FAX

I thought the current drug therapy basically either, a) introduces screwed up DNA so the virus can't perform, b) attempts to prevent the virus from attaching to a host cell, or c) alters the building blocks used by the virus to replicate, Mr. Bob Dole. At least, I think that's right. I do know that the current drugs come pre-packaged with some bad-ass side effects. It's the ability of the virus to mutate that's been one of the biggest problems as I understand it.

If they can actually prevent the virus from mutating, give the immune system time to rebuild, and "teach" the immune system to attack the virus as an invader, that's a huge step forward.

FAX

1) HIV only has RNA, not DNA
2) The newest drugs are considered either fusion inhibitors (which prevent the drug from fusing with the lymphocyte once it has attached), or attachment inhibitors, which prevent the virus from locking on to specific receptors on your T-Cells.
3) You're right about the viral mutations. HIV is a very quirky virus in that it makes a ton of errors in its replication process. This also causes a big problem with treatment, but you can't really prevent the virus from mutating unless your entire patient base is completely compliant with their regimen, infects no one else, and doesn't exchange viral strains with other infected parties.
4) Genetics play a huge factor in how well you can manage the disease. A portion of the European population has a mutation in the CCR5 Delta 32 receptor that actually makes it substantially more difficult for them to get HIV, and, if they have two such mutations, can be completely immune to infection.
5) AIDS drugs have horrid side effects--liver toxicity, chronic diarrhea, fever, constant nausea, are among a few.

[FAX]

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

1) HIV only has RNA, not DNA
2) The newest drugs are considered either fusion inhibitors (which prevent the drug from fusing with the lymphocyte once it has attached), or attachment inhibitors, which prevent the virus from locking on to specific receptors on your T-Cells.
3) You're right about the viral mutations. HIV is a very quirky virus in that it makes a ton of errors in its replication process. This also causes a big problem with treatment, but you can't really prevent the virus from mutating unless your entire patient base is completely compliant with their regimen, infects no one else, and doesn't exchange viral strains with other infected parties.
4) Genetics play a huge factor in how well you can manage the disease. A portion of the European population has a mutation in the CCR5 Delta 32 receptor that actually makes it substantially more difficult for them to get HIV, and, if they have two such mutations, can be completely immune to infection.
5) AIDS drugs have horrid side effects--liver toxicity, chronic diarrhea, fever, constant nausea, are among a few.

Thanks, Mr. 'Hamas' Jenkins. I'm a little confused on point 1, though. My understanding was that the HIV virus actually converts RNA to DNA which then combines with the host cell DNA. Incorrect?

FAX