NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/5263190.stm

But still a long way off. I doubt any drug company would release a drug which would have a high chance of causing some sort of drug induced leukemia in the patient.

Don't post this kind of thing. Whenever I've asserted that AIDS is curable, people here jump my shit. They'll jump your shit, too.

Well considering my version of AIDs treatment is similar to treating leukemia.

(Kill off White Blood cells by destroying the blood production parts of the body, then give only Red Blood cells until the Virus burns itself out. Then do a bone marrow transplant.)

But basicly this would make an infected cell continue to function even though it is infected right?

And people who go OMG AIDS IS AUTOMATIC DEATH!

Are idiots.

This is good to hear.

This is good to hear.
I remember posting not too long ago (last week) that science will eventually cure AIDS. And so many people jumped my shit and said that was an idiotic thing to say.

I put them in the same bin as creationists. Hey, if you don't believe the cure will exist, when it comes out, feel free to not use it.

Jumped my shit? What the fuck does that mean?

Well considering my version of AIDs

I've seen this a couple of times now and it's starting to annoy me. What is it with capitalising every letter except "s" in AIDS? Do people actually think it's a plural "s," or what?

Jumped my shit? What the fuck does that mean?
They told me I was stupid beyond all possible belief for thinking that science will one day cure HIV.

They said if I actually knew anything about science, I would know it was impossible.

Clarke's First Law:
When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.

Well considering my version of AIDs treatment is similar to treating leukemia.

(Kill off White Blood cells by destroying the blood production parts of the body, then give only Red Blood cells until the Virus burns itself out. Then do a bone marrow transplant.)

But basicly this would make an infected cell continue to function even though it is infected right?

Also, you do understand that HIV infects other cells, too, and not just lymphocytes?

As if that were the only hole in that plan...

They told me I was stupid beyond all possible belief for thinking that science will one day cure HIV.

Who said that? It sounds kind of odd to me.

I mean, it's one thing to say, "I don't think a cure will be found in our lifetimes" or "I think it is unlikely AIDS will ever be universally cured," but to say that it is IMPOSSIBLE to cure AIDS? That's a bit strange.

Who said that? It sounds kind of odd to me.

I mean, it's one thing to say, "I don't think a cure will be found in our lifetimes" or "I think it is unlikely AIDS will ever be universally cured," but to say that it is IMPOSSIBLE to cure AIDS? That's a bit strange.
It was just last week. At least three people, castigating me for saying that one day, science will cure HIV. I believe that it is a certainty - just a matter of time and effort.

They, on the other hand, believe it to be impossible. You know, like manned aerial flight, or going to the moon, or splitting the atom.

Hurray, they figured out after a decade or two of research how AIDS disables the immune system. Great, now they can sit around figuring out how to cure it without killing the person. We arn't really anywhere nearer to a true cure than we were a decade ago. It will be decades before they develop something they can test on rats.

I've seen this a couple of times now and it's starting to annoy me. What is it with capitalising every letter except "s" in AIDS? Do people actually think it's a plural "s," or what?
No I like the s lowercase that's all. 'syndrome' isn't really a major word in the term.

It was just last week. At least three people, castigating me for saying that one day, science will cure HIV. I believe that it is a certainty - just a matter of time and effort.

They, on the other hand, believe it to be impossible. You know, like manned aerial flight, or going to the moon, or splitting the atom.
I honestly don't know whether or not AIDS will be "cured." That is, I don't know if we will ever find a way to wipe out AIDS the way smallpox was wiped out.

However, if you define "curing AIDS" as "eliminating the health problem of the AIDS epidemic," then I agree with you...it's only a matter of time. Even if we never manage to wipe out the virus itself, we've already found ways to combat the effects of the virus with reasonable success. It's still not great, of course, but it's so much better than even 10 years ago.

Hurray, they figured out after a decade or two of research how AIDS disables the immune system. Great, now they can sit around figuring out how to cure it without killing the person. We arn't really anywhere nearer to a true cure than we were a decade ago.

Of course we are. Understanding how the virus works brings us significantly closer to developing a cure. Don't discount the value of descriptive research.


It will be decades before they develop something they can test on rats.
They've already tested many treatments on rats.

Of course we are. Understanding how the virus works brings us significantly closer to developing a cure. Don't discount the value of descriptive research.


They've already tested many treatments on rats.

There's one of them now. Pantless doesn't believe in science.

This is truly awesome news. How come I never see positive reports like this on the front page of the newspaper? If I did, maybe I'd read the paper and be informed about what was going on in the world. *Sigh*. Well, thanks for sharing the good news. :) :fluffle:

There's one of them now. Pantless doesn't believe in science.
A lot of people who "believe in science" still tend to ignore or discount descriptive research. That bums me out.

Descriptive research is EXTREMELY IMPORTANT, but it is often marginalized or looked down upon. Researchers who are going to try to cure a disease or repair some kind of damage are going to need to know about the system they are working with. They need to know the players and the parts. They need to understand the fullness of the situation. Somebody has to do that work, and it's very rude to sneer at them when they do so.

I'm biased, of course, because my thesis has an entire Aim that is descriptive. At least a third of my thesis is descriptive, and it might be closer to half. Why? Well, because the research in my area of study has been stunted by the lack of descriptive information about the system. Nobody seems to want to put in the time to describe the system in detail, they all just want to bull ahead and try to figure out how it functions...without knowing what "it" really is!

Of course we are. Understanding how the virus works brings us significantly closer to developing a cure. Don't discount the value of descriptive research.
Significantly closer only in so much that we know what the virus does that we need to try and fix. We don't have anything properly capable of doing that right now and tailoring something to be that specific could take decades, at which point it will be tested on rats.

They've already tested many treatments on rats.
I guess I'm the only one that read the article. No previous treatments that do what they are looking for are specific enough.

There's one of them now. Pantless doesn't believe in science.
Deep Kimchi doesn't believe in extraneous things like facts, and reading, or not being a dick.

This is truly awesome news. How come I never see positive reports like this on the front page of the newspaper? If I did, maybe I'd read the paper and be informed about what was going on in the world. *Sigh*. Well, thanks for sharing the good news. :) :fluffle:
Probably because most newspapers don't believe this story is newsworthy enough for the front page. Except maybe the Daily Mail, which would no doubt have some sort of homophobic reaction to it.

Significantly closer only in so much that we know what the virus does that we need to try and fix. We don't have anything properly capable of doing that right now and tailoring something to be that specific could take decades, at which point it will be tested on rats.

Knowing what the virus does, and knowing what we need to fix, is a HUGE STEP.

Really, what you're saying is, "We're not any closer to a cure at all, except for the fact that we're a whole lot closer to finding a cure!"


I guess I'm the only one that read the article. No previous treatments that do what they are looking for are specific enough.

(Bold mine)

The treatment approach in question may be the first of its kind to get this far. There are many different approaches that have been tried. The fact that none has succeeded so far does NOT indicate that we are "getting nowhere."

Remember, in science one works to disprove rather than to prove. Eliminating possibilities and disproving hypotheses is good science, and is the foundation of all scientific progress. We know a whole lot of things that don't work and we didn't know those things before. Even if we aren't able to cure AIDS yet, we still are much closer to being able to do so than we were, because we have a much better understanding of what we are dealing with.

Probably because most newspapers don't believe this story is newsworthy enough for the front page. Except maybe the Daily Mail, which would no doubt have some sort of homophobic reaction to it.
I don't get that. One step closer to finding a cure for a disease that has affected millions of people, and its not newsworthy? *sigh* sometimes society disappoints me so.

I don't get that. One step closer to finding a cure for a disease that has affected millions of people, and its not newsworthy? *sigh* sometimes society disappoints me so.

It's not society it is the press! Well at least in this case.

I don't get that. One step closer to finding a cure for a disease that has affected millions of people, and its not newsworthy? *sigh* sometimes society disappoints me so.
The problem is that while it is a big step, it requires a considerable amount of science to be explained before your average person on the street is going to understand the basics of it, let alone grasping it completely. I imagine you'd find it on around page 20 of a broadsheet, but not at all in a tabloid.

I don't get that. One step closer to finding a cure for a disease that has affected millions of people, and its not newsworthy? *sigh* sometimes society disappoints me so.
Part of the problem, at least in the US, is that AIDS still carries so much stigma. AIDS patients are assumed to be either sexual deviants or drug addicts, and are generally assumed to be irresponsible people who got what they deserved. A lot of people in America view AIDS as a justified punishment for "sin."

Remember, we didn't even get started dealing with AIDS until years after it hit this country, because the people getting sick and dying were people who society viewed as worthy of punishment. AIDS disproportionately impacts the poor, racial minorities, sex workers, and homosexual men, all of whom are viewed as undesirables by much of mainstream society.

Thus, there is not much enthusiasm for curing AIDS. It's like how the religious right wing doesn't want children to be vaccinated against HPV; they WANT people to get sick and die if they "sin"!

The cure for AIDS: Nanotechnology. *nod*

Thus, there is not much enthusiasm for curing AIDS. It's like how the religious right wing doesn't want children to be vaccinated against HPV; they WANT people to get sick and die if they "sin"!
Now that's stupid right there.

The cure for AIDS: Nanotechnology. *nod*
Which is also the cure for cancer, by the way. And while not looking for delinquent viruses and crazed cells, nanites can repair heart and arteries.

Of course, some verse in the Bible will be completely mangled by fundies to say that nanotechnology is a sin, as is usual with progress.

Part of the problem, at least in the US, is that AIDS still carries so much stigma. AIDS patients are assumed to be either sexual deviants or drug addicts, and are generally assumed to be irresponsible people who got what they deserved. A lot of people in America view AIDS as a justified punishment for "sin."

Remember, we didn't even get started dealing with AIDS until years after it hit this country, because the people getting sick and dying were people who society viewed as worthy of punishment. AIDS disproportionately impacts the poor, racial minorities, sex workers, and homosexual men, all of whom are viewed as undesirables by much of mainstream society.

Thus, there is not much enthusiasm for curing AIDS. It's like how the religious right wing doesn't want children to be vaccinated against HPV; they WANT people to get sick and die if they "sin"!
But thats so dumb! Gah! Such people are hardly the Christians they label themselves as.

On a side note, do you know, can you get the HPV vaccine if you are already sexually active?

Part of the problem, at least in the US, is that AIDS still carries so much stigma. AIDS patients are assumed to be either sexual deviants or drug addicts, and are generally assumed to be irresponsible people who got what they deserved. A lot of people in America view AIDS as a justified punishment for "sin."

Remember, we didn't even get started dealing with AIDS until years after it hit this country, because the people getting sick and dying were people who society viewed as worthy of punishment. AIDS disproportionately impacts the poor, racial minorities, sex workers, and homosexual men, all of whom are viewed as undesirables by much of mainstream society.

Thus, there is not much enthusiasm for curing AIDS. It's like how the religious right wing doesn't want children to be vaccinated against HPV; they WANT people to get sick and die if they "sin"!

Don't forget that condoms are the tool of Satan! That's a big part of the religious right's campaign.

Now that's stupid right there.
Its worse than stupid. Its cruel and hateful. Its like saying, just because we cant stone adulterers (or anyone who does something we disagree with) anymore doesnt mean we have to afford them basic protection from disease.

But thats slightly offtopic, and way more depressing than the happy tenor of this thread, so I'll try and drop it.

Which is also the cure for cancer, by the way. And while not looking for delinquent viruses and crazed cells, nanites can repair heart and arteries.

The only real bottleneck as far as nanites go is in production. There is not yet an efficient means of producing them in large numbers. Once a method is found(there were some interesting specuulations referenced in Michael Crighton's book, 'Prey'), the science will explode.

In fact, I don't know whether to be more amazed or horrified. Nanotechnology is potentially the most threatening weapon ever conceived. But the benefits...holy shit! *nod*

Of course, some verse in the Bible will be completely mangled by fundies to say that nanotechnology is a sin, as is usual with progress.

Dangerous. Nanotechnology is dangerous. That's the only argument against it I consider valid.

Don't post this kind of thing. Whenever I've asserted that AIDS is curable, people here jump my shit. They'll jump your shit, too.

Theres a better hope that it will become preventable via vaccine. It's already more treatable every year than it was the year before. This search for a cure is good in many obvious ways but probably takes more resources away from the quest for a vaccine than it should.

Dangerous. Nanotechnology is dangerous. That's the only argument against it I consider valid.
http://www.smalltimes.com/document_display.cfm?document_id=5239

Part of the problem, at least in the US, is that AIDS still carries so much stigma. AIDS patients are assumed to be either sexual deviants or drug addicts, and are generally assumed to be irresponsible people who got what they deserved. A lot of people in America view AIDS as a justified punishment for "sin."

Remember, we didn't even get started dealing with AIDS until years after it hit this country, because the people getting sick and dying were people who society viewed as worthy of punishment. AIDS disproportionately impacts the poor, racial minorities, sex workers, and homosexual men, all of whom are viewed as undesirables by much of mainstream society.

Thus, there is not much enthusiasm for curing AIDS. It's like how the religious right wing doesn't want children to be vaccinated against HPV; they WANT people to get sick and die if they "sin"!

A very miniscual amount of christians think that way today, and it is not a reason why the press do not print it.

The problem is that while it is a big step, it requires a considerable amount of science to be explained before your average person on the street is going to understand the basics of it, let alone grasping it completely. I imagine you'd find it on around page 20 of a broadsheet, but not at all in a tabloid.

The problem is that the last 38 times that they reported a BIG STEP in a cure for peeps with AIDS they were wrong. I think the journalism maxim goes "Once bitten twice shy , 38 times bitten, fuck reporting that again".

No I like the s lowercase that's all.

It's an orthographical error that gives the impression you don't know anything about the syndrome.

'syndrome' isn't really a major word in the term.

Actually, it's a crucial part of the term and the disorder - that it's a syndrome.

The problem is that the last 38 times that they reported a BIG STEP in a cure for peeps with AIDS they were wrong. I think the journalism maxim goes "Once bitten twice shy , 38 times bitten, fuck reporting that again".
Really? You want to explain why the Daily Express regularly (at least once a week) runs a story about there being a conspiracy surrounding Princess Diana's death?

Really? You want to explain why the Daily Express regularly (at least once a week) runs a story about there being a conspiracy surrounding Princess Diana's death?

What does the Daily Express have to do with journalism?

The treatment approach in question may be the first of its kind to get this far.
What treatment approach? This was a study done on HIV to again try and figure out what exactly it did.

Even if we aren't able to cure AIDS yet, we still are much closer to being able to do so than we were, because we have a much better understanding of what we are dealing with.
This study clarified that HIV attacks T cells through some molecular "switch." Great. That only puts us at the beginning of a new level, doesn't mean you will be able to reach the end without having to hit "Reset."

What does the Daily Express have to do with journalism?
Good point...

Don't forget that condoms are the tool of Satan! That's a big part of the religious right's campaign.

I'm not a religious man so I'm no expert but in my life I've heard and read a lot more lunatic ravings and moonbat rants about religion than I ever heard from religion. At this juncture if I had to pick which side was more likely to froth at the mouth and go rabidly unreasonable against the other I'd say it was the one that constantly drags the other side in as a kind of silent evil villian no matter what the subject at hand is. Count the posts by religious types in this thread about AIDS. Approsximately 0. Next count the propagandist posts against religious types in this thread. Approximately too fucking many to not distract.

Maybe we just need a pinned thread so you guys can just have a fun hay day bouncing off one another expounding the virtues of hating religion and the people who practice it. I dunno. But I felt the need to point this out.

What treatment approach? This was a study done on HIV to again try and figure out what exactly it did.

This study clarified that HIV attacks T cells through some molecular "switch." Great. That only puts us at the beginning of a new level, doesn't mean you will be able to reach the end without having to hit "Reset."

Just keep being pessimistic.

Really? You want to explain why the Daily Express regularly (at least once a week) runs a story about there being a conspiracy surrounding Princess Diana's death?

They arent journalists. They cater to a different set of readers than a newspaper would. Have you renewed your subscription?

What treatment approach? This was a study done on HIV to again try and figure out what exactly it did.


This study clarified that HIV attacks T cells through some molecular "switch." Great. That only puts us at the beginning of a new level, doesn't mean you will be able to reach the end without having to hit "Reset."As far as I know this is the part where all the major drug companies will be willing to spend a lot on research into the treatment. They know what they want to target, what they need to do is experimeny with the already existing drug until they can find a version of the drug that only affects t-cells, or as close to as is possible. Like how non-drowsy, can-consume-alcohol-at-same-time antihistamines were developed.

As far as I know this is the part where all the major drug companies will be willing to spend a lot on research into the treatment. They know what they want to target, what they need to do is experimeny with the already existing drug until they can find a version of the drug that only affects t-cells, or as close to as is possible. Like how non-drowsy, can-consume-alcohol-at-same-time antihistamines were developed.

I can see where having T cells that cant be "switched off" could be a bad or even fatal thing. Not that there is such a thing as an on/off switch on a T cell. You cant really blame the BBC for dumbing it down for readers though.

I can see where having T cells that cant be "switched off" could be a bad or even fatal thing. Not that there is such a thing as an on/off switch on a T cell. You cant really blame the BBC for dumbing it down for readers though.
That's the real problem, I think. Too many people rely on the mainstream media for their information about science and medicine. Mainstream media can be a nice starting point, and certainly has uses, but if you want to understand ongoing AIDS research you probably shouldn't be limiting yourself to a BBC news story.

As for the "switch" they are refering to, it's actually an apoptosis pathway (PD-1). Cells that are dead are "off" in terms of function, I suppose, but the idea of "on-off" switches is a bit misleading in this context.

Here's a link to an article about the PD-1 (programmed cell death) pathway:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v439/n7077/full/439669a.html

That's the real problem, I think. Too many people rely on the mainstream media for their information about science and medicine. Mainstream media can be a nice starting point, and certainly has uses, but if you want to understand ongoing AIDS research you probably shouldn't be limiting yourself to a BBC news story.
Here's a good start.

And much better than the BBC.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?DB=pubmed

I can see where having T cells that cant be "switched off" could be a bad or even fatal thing. Not that there is such a thing as an on/off switch on a T cell. You cant really blame the BBC for dumbing it down for readers though.As I read it, it was a 'switch' that meant the cell would kill itself.

They arent journalists. They cater to a different set of readers than a newspaper would. Have you renewed your subscription?
To the Express? I'm a Guardian reader...

To the Express? I'm a Guardian reader...

Word on the street is you read the headlines every week to check who killed Dianna lately.

As I read it, it was a 'switch' that meant the cell would kill itself.
Its apoptosis not suicide.

Word on the street is you read the headlines every week to check who killed Dianna lately.
No, there's a daily round-up column on the BBC website of headlines and stories from various newspapers - and you can guarantee there will be mention of the Daily Express putting forward another conspiracy regarding Diana.

I remember posting not too long ago (last week) that science will eventually cure AIDS. And so many people jumped my shit and said that was an idiotic thing to say.

I put them in the same bin as creationists. Hey, if you don't believe the cure will exist, when it comes out, feel free to not use it.


I agree. It wouldn't surprise me if there was already a cure and those lovely pharma companies were holding out. Though I could believe in conspriacy theories too much. Anyway another method for beating HIV was brought out recently, I don't think it will take off too much in Africa, due to the status of women, and the high rape percentage in some parts but basically its like a gel that the women applies before sex that prevents her getting the HIV virus. It was on the BBC news site bout 2 weeks ago. I'll try and find a link. Bill Gates is putting huge money into it.