HIV-AIDS conference

[SpeedRacer 1]

just returned from the 12th annual conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections. I was presenting our research about mutations in HIV that cause resistance to certain AIDS drugs called protease inhibitors.

There's some pretty cool new research going on
Since 1996 Patients with HIV are given what is called HAART (Highly Active Anti-Retroviral therapy). It hits HIV in two different stages of its lifecycle: one set of drugs inhibits reverse transcriptase, and another set of drugs inhibits the action of the viral protease.
(Reverse Transcriptase is an enzyme that synthesizes DNA from the viral RNA, and the protease is an enzyme that cleaves a long polypeptide chain into functional viral proteins)

So anyway, there's new stuff in the pipeline: 1) Inhibiting the ability of the virus to enter the cell in the first place 2) Inhibiting the ability of the viral DNA to get incorporated into the host chromosomal DNA 3) New vaccines that stimulate the patient's T-lymphocytes to destroy cells harboring HIV

It was great to be able to see all the creative brain power that's going into this.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[bodypilot90 0]

it's great. but did they talk about the high % of people that get aids by being in activities that put themselves at risk?

[aprilcat 0]

So anyway, there's new stuff in the pipeline: 1) Inhibiting the ability of the virus to enter the cell in the first place 2) Inhibiting the ability of the viral DNA to get incorporated into the host chromosomal DNA 3) New vaccines that stimulate the patient's T-lymphocytes to destroy cells harboring HIV

It was great to be able to see all the creative brain power that's going into this.

[AMax 0]

Quote

So anyway, there's new stuff in the pipeline: 1) Inhibiting the ability of the virus to enter the cell in the first place 2) Inhibiting the ability of the viral DNA to get incorporated into the host chromosomal DNA 3) New vaccines that stimulate the patient's T-lymphocytes to destroy cells harboring HIV

Do you know when all these compounds will hit the clinical trials?

[mcneill79 0]

That sounds awesome. Good work on being a part of such a great cause.

[jumpergirl 0]

Way to go! That's interesting stuff and I'm glad to know it's being presented to the public.

[Keith 0]

WOW!

Keith

Don't Fuck with me Keith - J. Mandeville

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

So anyway, there's new stuff in the pipeline: 1) Inhibiting the ability of the virus to enter the cell in the first place 2) Inhibiting the ability of the viral DNA to get incorporated into the host chromosomal DNA 3) New vaccines that stimulate the patient's T-lymphocytes to destroy cells harboring HIV

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Do you know when all these compounds will hit the clinical trials?

um, well I'm pretty sure that #1 & #2 are already in clinical trials, but I'm pretty sure that #3 isnt, since they just finished the monkey study using SIV (simian immunodeficiency virus, similar to HIV, but infects monkeys)

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[Kbone 0]

Quote

There's some pretty cool new research going on

Dude, give it up. They have had a cure for AIDS ever since AIDS has existed.

Think about it. What other Virus exists that takes 5-10 years to show any symtoms?

Clearly the Virus was designed to infect as many people as possible without them knowing about it.

The money is in the treatment of AIDS.

Ever notice how scientists are always looking for treatments, ever wonder why they don't bother with vaccines or cures?

[AMax 0]

Quote

um, well I'm pretty sure that #1 & #2 are already in clinical trials, but I'm pretty sure that #3 isnt, since they just finished the monkey study using SIV (simian immunodeficiency virus, similar to HIV, but infects monkeys)

well I hope they don't fail like most of the drugs do

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

Dude, give it up. They have had a cure for AIDS ever since AIDS has existed.

Think about it. What other Virus exists that takes 5-10 years to show any symtoms?

Clearly the Virus was designed to infect as many people as possible without them knowing about it.

The money is in the treatment of AIDS.

Ever notice how scientists are always looking for treatments, ever wonder why they don't bother with vaccines or cures?

I happen to be one of those scientists doing AIDS research.

Obviously, you've discovered our secret, evil conspiracy. We can't let you live now.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[billvon 2,991]

I have deleted your post on this thread; it was an obvious troll intended for no other reason than to piss people off.

This is your one warning. If you continue trying to piss people off your username is going to get removed, since you seem to troll equally in all the forums.

[Beverly 1]

Hey,

Thanks for this update.
Is there anything in the pipeline in terms of cures yet apart from the current ARV's that are just prolonging life?

I know the preventative is great, but Africa is so far gone that the full blown AIDS is so bad there is no turning back.

We need cures?

Let me know if there is any news on that horison.

I think true friendship is under-rated

Twitter: @Dreamskygirlsa

[Kbone 0]

Quote

I have deleted your post on this thread; it was an obvious troll intended for no other reason than to piss people off.

That may be your opinion, but I was simply asking how they could cure the AIDS virus when they couldn't even cure the common cold.

Mind your own business.

[MC208B 0]

Bill, how do you determine what pisses people off? I don't see any TOS shit about pissing people off as in personal attacks etc.

Maybe that guy has a valid question.

After all, you usually believe and espouse a lot of stuff that us right wing wackos disagree with and get pissed off over.

So, next time that happens, can I warn you and ask HH to shitcan you?

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

We need cures?

Let me know if there is any news on that horison.

I did, see the first post. Those ARE intended to be cures.

OK to all the people asking about "cures":


As far as I know with a virus, all you can do is inhibit its "lifecycle" anyway you can. I mean, viruses are non-cellular, so its not like you can use antibiotics with them.

So when people complain that we scientists are not coming up with a "cure", exactly what do you mean?? What would be the mechanism of that?

(an example of a mechanism would be, in antibiotics vs bacteria for example: pennicillin inhibits the ability of bacteria to construct a cell wall. Erythromycin inhibits the ability of the bacterial ribosome to move along the strand of RNA being transcribed)

So why do people believe that we have abandoned "cures" in favor of "treatments"?? We are trying to cure this disease in the best ways we know how.

Some people seem to believe we are "holding back" on finding cures. Define exactly what else we should do, or by what other method we could use to eradicate HIV.

We'd love to hear about it, believe me.


...anyone??......anyone??....Beuller??......
.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[beowulf 1]

They have probably been watching too much tv. On Stargate SG1 they cure these things all the time

[SpeedRacer 1]

Maybe people actually have an idea in mind. Seriously, I would love to hear them.

(Otherwise, it might be like in the Dilbert cartoon, in which the Pointy-Haired boss thinks "Anything I don't understand must be easy to do...")



.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[SpeedRacer 1]

I've been thinking about this a lot, because i ran into this same problem when i used to do cancer research.

Non-scientists would ask "so are they any closer to a cure for cancer?"

I'd say, "what do you mean, they cure cancer all the time nowadays."

The non-scientists seem to believe there is no cure for cancer, it can only be treated. Nevermind the fact that many people are permanently cured of the cancer they went in to get treated. I spent 3 years at the Dana-Farber Cancer Research Institute in Boston, so I know. I wouldn't be suprised if we have some cancer survivors right here on this website. (PETA exploits this mentality when it [falsely]says that all the years of animal research has not resulted in any progress towards a cure)

So what exactly do non-scientist think of when they say they want a CURE versus TREATMENT???

What other way is there to deal with cancer or viral infections other than treating them with compounds intended to stop the growth of the cancer or the virus, without harming the healthy cells of the patient??

What exactly do non-scientists visualise in their minds when they say they want a "cure" for cancer or viral infections?

Does it mean something that ALWAYS works 100% of the time? Or does it mean a pill that if you take it, it will clear up your advanced AIDS overnight, or what?


.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[beowulf 1]

I compare that to what I get from different users that deal with in my work (Network Administrator). I have had people say well can't you just flip a switch and fix this problem. It should be easy to fix this problem all you have to do is "blah blah blah". Most of the time they don't have any clue as to what I do to fix any problems that come up on my network. The things that they think are the simplest are often the hardest things to fix and what they would think is really hard is often easy.
People want a quick and easy fix. "just flip a switch"

[SpeedRacer 1]

It works in Star Trek all the time!

Usually some engineer just says something like: "Maybe I could just re-configure the graviton matrix to the same frequency as the throbiton field!"

Then he just goes over to a panel with a lot of lights & buttons on it & starts pushing some of them.

Problem solved.


.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[billvon 2,991]

>What would be the mechanism of that? (example: pennicillin inhibits
>the ability of bacteria to construct a cell wall)

Reverse transcriptase inhibitors would seem to act in an identical manner i.e. prevent replication of viruses (in theory at least.)

There are lots of ways your body fights off normal viruses; I think it can be accurately said that you can 'cure' many rhinoviruses in that your body is effective at eliminating them and preventing their return. The problem with HIV, of course, is that it messes with the system your body uses to fight viruses; hence the difficulty in mounting an immune response to it.

[SpeedRacer 1]

you're absolutely right, bill.

With viruses that cause what we call the common cold (rhinovirus and adenovirus) you usually cure them by letting your immune system eventually get rid of them. hopefully you try to make your immune system perform optimally by getting plenty of rest, drinking fluids, good nutrition, etc.

And yes, people with HIV do mount an immune response & produce antibodies vs. HIV, but at the same time the HIV is continuing to infect T-lymphocytes and macrophages. Which are actively dividing & carrying the HIV genome with them, since the HIV genome incorporates directly into the host cell's chromasomes.


But regarding disease in general, sometimes it seems that people think a drug should just magically jump in there & make the disease VANISH. It just doesn't work that way. And I've never been able to really pin down what the non-scientists are thinking when they say we should look for CURES instead of just "TREATMENTS".


.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[wmw999 2,446]

Quote

But regarding disease in general, sometimes it seems that people think a drug should just magically jump in there & make the disease VANISH.

My dad's 87; when he was a kid, many diseases (with serious infection being classed as a disease for this purpose) were far less treatable than they are now.

Now you can take penicillin for many things that used to be called diseases (e.g. bacterial pneumonia, strep throat). They were pretty common then; everyone knew someone who'd had it, and the effects could be bad. My mother missed a year in school with pneumonia.

Then along came treatments that turned months of illness into days or a week at the longest. With a single treatment or a short course. And therefore the long-term results were mitigated, too. Ergo, a cure to them.

Now, well, we're used to most stuff either not existing in the first place (polio, smallpox), or being short-lived and comparatively mild (pneumonia). So we want a really big difference like our parents and grandparents had. And we want it now!.

The fact that the (comparatively) low-hanging fruit are gone is irrelevant. I know you knew this; I'm just pontificating, but I enjoy doing that, and you guys can just scroll down

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[SpeedRacer 1]

But it seems when we get those things, some people ignore it.

We've got people walking around now who wouldn't have 25 years ago, because they had cancer & got cured (in oncology, a cancer is considered cured if it goes away stays away for 5 years) Yet we still have those geniuses at PETA claiming there has been no progress.

.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------