It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Mutant HIV Wave Threatens Decades of Drug Progress, Study Finds

page: 1
10
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Mutant HIV Wave Threatens Decades of Drug Progress, Study Finds


www.bloomberg.com

A wave of drug-resistant HIV emerging in the U.S. threatens to undermine progress made in treating patients in poor countries

About 60 percent of drug-resistant HIV strains circulating in San Francisco can spur self-sustaining epidemics as patients who haven’t been treated spread them

The mutant strains may reverse progress made in expanding treatment programs in poorer nations such as South Africa, where there is little access to back-up medicines when resistance occurs

“Our modeling i
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 05:57 PM
link   
Firstly to start off

Some Antiviral Drugs Could Make Diseases Worse, New Study Suggests



medications that cause viruses to die off by forcing their nucleic acid to mutate rapidly might actually, in some instances, cause them to emerge from the process stronger, perhaps even more virulent than before drug treatment.

Scientists tested the model of viral evolution at high mutation rates by growing a DNA virus in the presence of a mutagenic agent. The current accepted model predicted that the virus would not be able to handle the high mutation rates and would eventually die off. However, this study proved the model false, as the virus actually increased its fitness at elevated mutation rates. During this study, scientists found molecular evidence that rapid mutations had two effects.
www.sciencedaily.com...


Hmmmm.... Could it be that this HIV mutation was caused by non other than medicines trying to help the patient?

It's not like i'm always trying to be a skeptic, but being a skeptic and wanting to be informed are two completely different things.

It's important to understand the difference, at least for me it is.

www.bloomberg.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 06:20 PM
link   
Good find mate, Seems like no good news on the horizon. So is this still contained to America? I hope it doesn't reach Africa... Wait does this mean that people who already have the original AIDS virus are immune to the new mutant strain?

I guess that's kind of a good thing if 60% of Africans have the treatable kind and are immune to this new strain....



posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 06:45 PM
link   
Well there is a fairly well known conspiricy that HIV was auctually produced in a lab to depopulize, which would explain why it suddenly mutated.



posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 06:49 PM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


Please don't take this wrong, but....

I never understood why we let people with a deadly disease with no known cure have drugs to extend their life. That is like anti-evolutionary. Many of them will just spead it to more people the longer their life is. Don't get me wrong, I am all for finding a Permenant cure or vaccine and making sure everyone gets it.



posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 07:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Feeling Frisky
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


Please don't take this wrong, but....

I never understood why we let people with a deadly disease with no known cure have drugs to extend their life. That is like anti-evolutionary. Many of them will just spead it to more people the longer their life is. Don't get me wrong, I am all for finding a Permenant cure or vaccine and making sure everyone gets it.

I'm not sure, as an HIV-poz person how to take that the right way...
But let's try for argument's sake.
HIV cannot be transmitted casually, but only through contact with blood, semen or vaginal fluid. One would therefore hope that everyone stays faithful to one partner or practices safe sex, not only to prevent HIV, but many other STDs and unwanted pregnancies. The responsibility of not spreading and contracting STDs is up to both infected and uninfected individuals.
Most HIV is spread in the "asymptomatic phase" (which can last from 6-12 years), when people are often not diagnosed with HIV. If you want to stop it being spread by wiping out all the infected, this would be the phase to do so, and not during the stage when people require the life-extending treatment.
The degree of infectiousnes rises with the viral load in the infected person: this is highest shortly after infection before the infected person has built up antibodies (and will therefore test negative to most screening tests, although being highly infectious - the so-called "window period"), and during the final phase of Aids, when the virus replicates into the millions. Treatment can keep the virus low to undetectable, and can reverse the viral load proliferation. Therefore ARVs make the patient less infectious and dangerous, which protects society at large. (Letting people die from Aids usually takes at least two years, during which the patient will be highly infectious.)
In South Africa the social impact has been enormous, not only for the infected, but also the affected. Letting somebody die a slow death in a poverty stricken setting with overcrowded hospitals is something we have seen all to well under President Mbeki's Aids denialism. Imagine a painful, slow death in a shack with great stigma and the danger to family care-givers. Some villages have as many as 800 Aids orphans whose parents are dead. So, we have this problem of child-headed housholds with no bread-winner, where children as young as 13 must care for younger siblings. Where treatment was available those parents are alive to raise their families. Then there is the economic cost of having the young, productive, skilled segment of the population dying off. HIV/Aids infects the most productive segment of society, between childhood and retirement. Imagine your trained professionals, teachers and nurses all dying.
With treatment the stigma declines and people get tested sooner - it is thus a crucial link in HIV-prevention, both socially and medically. And why should they have to die when they can live normally with a chronic condition? Surely everybody should know about safe sex, and how to protect themselves?
Ultimately to find more effective drugs, a vaccine or cure the co-operation of HIV-positive people is required, and why should they come forward if treatment is denied because some people ARE STILL iresponsible with their sex lives? Can you imagine what this would do to people mentally? It is certainly not a recipe for political stability.
So we need treatment to:
- keep both the infected and their affected communities productive in the economy and decrease Aids orphans and child-run households
- decrease the viral load and HIV particles in society, thus lowering the risk of infection
- limit the risk of secondary infections like TB and XDR TB in commnities with low immune systems due to HIV
- to prevent mother-to-child infections and free the burden on hospitals
- to lower stigma and thus to encourage testing, counselling and treatment, and therefore
- to enable HIV prevention
We've seen the results of withholding treatment, and it is not pretty. It caused an explosion of new infections, which are now slowly being reduced with treatment policies. I hope that goes some way to answer your query
.

PS: I think evolution gave us the facilities to explore and find medical treatments. Indeed, some groups and communities already have some natural immunity, and they are being studied. There could really be a counter-evolutionary argument to all medical treatments, but taking them literally will make stemming Aids the least of our concerns, because SARS or Ebola could arrive on your doorstep unhindered without intervention. We are no longer living in islolated tribes where viruses died-out contained. Therefore we cannot think in 19th Century evolutionary terms (unless we take all of society back to that point), or we'll face extinction.

[edit on 14-1-2010 by halfoldman]



posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 08:46 PM
link   
You know, I understand how an HIV-positive person might "feel offended," but, frankly, as a species, we can't afford to pander to people's personal "feelings" when it comes to lethal and incurable diseases.

It's too bad if you're offended, but we have to take steps to deal effectively with HIV/AIDS in the future, because we're not "curing it"...

Funny, why don't the Centers for Disease Control and the World Health Organization stop pushing cures for incurable viruses such as HIV, and start advocating intelligent behavior??

Because every expert on the subject knows that HIV is a virus spread by specific behaviors. It is not communicable by airborne means, you can't catch it from a toilet seat, you can't catch it from a mosquito bite, and you can't even catch it from an open-mouthed kiss.

The HIV virus has such a short life outside of a warm human bloodstream (mere minutes), the only way you can contract it is by injecting the living virus directly from one warm human body into another. That means only through sexual contact (especially through anal sex) or by sharing a contaminated syringe.

That's it.

The "freak" instances of infection — for example, a bleeding HIV carrier dripping live blood into your mouth or onto an open wound, or a nurse pricking her finger with an HIV-contaminated syringe — are so rare that you can count the number of actual instances on the fingers of one hand. That's just a fact.

So, you can't "accidentally" catch HIV... You have to make an appointment to catch HIV. In short, you have to make a conscious decision to engage in high-risk behavior. You're just not going to catch HIV otherwise.

Instead of fighting a losing battle, concocting "vaccines" for a virus that can and will mutate, why don't we advocate sexual abstinence and abstinence from sharing syringes??

I mean, I think we could eradicate HIV/AIDS in one generation simply by ramping-up education on high-risk behavior.

Show kids the photos and videos of the horrendously plague-ridden AIDS victims and TELL the kids, without parsing words, "THIS is what happens when somebody ejaculates sperm into your rectum" and "THIS is what happens when you have promiscuous sex" and "THIS is what happens when you share syringes"...

We can't sugar-coat this any longer and pretend HIV/AIDS is somehow "curable" — It's NOT.

The only thing we CAN do is modify our behavior.

Do Not Do THIS or You Will DIE.

Do Not Do THAT or You Will DIE.

PERIOD.

Are we so far gone that we can't modify our personal behavior?

— Doc Velocity








[edit on 1/14/2010 by Doc Velocity]



posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 10:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Doc Velocity
I mean, I think we could eradicate HIV/AIDS in one generation simply by ramping-up education on high-risk behavior...

Are we so far gone that we can't modify our personal behavior?


Your idea sounds great on paper, Doc, and there are LOTS of problems we could eradicate in one generation simply by instilling the correct behavior in our kids and practicing it ourselves, but we live in a world with a decaying concept of personal responsibility and a ballooning concept of entitlement and self gratification.

Sadly, I know too many people who want to be their kids best friends and they do so at the cost of being good parents and providing meaningful discipline and guidance to their kids on topics that matter. They end up hurting their kids in the long run.

I know school teachers who try for weeks to reach parents of kids who are clearly troubled or in trouble (either personally or scholastically) and they don't even get return phone calls. That is, of course, until the kid does something stupid and gets caught or suspended.

Then those suddenly caring parents come in and fight like heck about how the teacher failed to do their job, and how their little angel was some sort of victim.

We live in a politically correct world where mediocrity is rewarded so as not to hurt the feelings and self esteem of the weak.

Do you *really* think a solution that requires everyone to pull their own weight, act responsibly and do their part has a shot?



posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 11:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Doc Velocity
 


I kept reading and reading trying to find a solid point, but found none. What you indirectly suggest is that we take the right of responsibility out of the hands of the individual and instead give it to the government. I hate to break it to you, but we tried this, and it didn't work. The government used to force TB patients to go to wards specifically with the goal of curing their condition. Later this was deemed unlawful, despite the high infectiousness of TB (much more so than HIV). Even more recently the public has backlashed against vaccines, which serve to protect the populace from the emergence of disease. As such an individual who is not vaccinated can get sick and show few symptoms while unknowingly infecting someone else, who may unfortunately develop a more lethal case.

I know you want what is in the public's best interest, but people need the right to live or die by their decisions. To the person who acquires an infection he or she must live with the consequences of treatment and stigma. Sure, HIV stands pretty obvious, but what about the football players in high school who end up with MRSA, do we not treat them? We currently lack very effective treatment for MRSA, our antibiotics against it don't work so well. Then there are the conditions which carry stigma and necessitate treatment, but which are not of infectious origin. Take Huntington's Disease for example: 100% genetic, no very good drugs to treat it. Should we sterilize all carriers to ensure that the disease ceases to exist in the US? If so, when do we stop, and how do we factor in the natural tendency of the human genome to mutate?

This all overlooks the many strides we have made due to disease. Thanks to HIV we have made advances in immunology which would have been unthinkable in the 1950s. As our antibiotic supply dwindles the emergence of MRSA has resulted in more research dollars to find better treatments for this very morbid condition. Etc.

I hate to break it to you, but it is only through death that we have learned how best to promote life. Conditions which seem like a walk in the park today were at one time devastating. Next time you get sick I want you to ask yourself: who died so that I could get better?



posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 11:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by wildcat117Do you *really* think a solution that requires everyone to pull their own weight, act responsibly and do their part has a shot?


This is what the anti-vaccine nuts need to ask themselves!



posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 11:06 PM
link   
there will never be a cure, can we cure a simple cold virus? answer no.



posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 11:11 PM
link   
reply to post by starshiner
 


viruses are like weeds, you can attempt to eradicate but the root will live within and grow back tougher and stronger, most weed killers don't even work anymore!!

dont do drugs, don't fight and be careful who you open your legs to.



posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 11:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by emac01
I know you want what is in the public's best interest, but people need the right to live or die by their decisions.

When personal decisions threaten the survival of the species, it's time to shîtcan those personal decisions, teach kids that certain personal decisions are as lethal as WMD.

Don't try to tell me that I'm on the side of government, because I'm not. The government is so screwed up — trying to protect everyone's imagined rights — that it's driving us to extinction.

No, everyone does not have a right to engage in behavior that threatens the species. I will personally teach kids that anal sex and promiscuity and shooting up drugs are all EVIL before I tell them that the decision is up to them.

It's not up to them. Their rights stop when it comes to endangering the species, and that's what I think all parents should teach their kids.

Not the government, because the government itself is Evil, as far as I'm concerned.

— Doc Velocity



posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 11:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by emac01
I kept reading and reading trying to find a solid point, but found none.

You're closing your eyes to a situation you do not wish to acknowledge. The points are abundant, but your mental programming refuses to embrace the facts.


Originally posted by emac01
This is what the anti-vaccine nuts need to ask themselves!

If you knew anything about the evolutionary dead-end of vaccines and immunization technology, you'd be singing a different tune.

Vaccines do not make our species stronger — just the opposite. Vaccines are a quick fix that only provide protection for one mutation of a virus. Vaccines allow weak individuals to survive and spread their weak genetic material through reproduction.

Vaccines weaken the gene pool, permitting the human species to overpopulate the planet in less than one century with masses of weak individuals. Before the 20th Century, there were less than one billion people in the world. During the 20th Century, thanks to widespread use of immunization technology, the human population exploded to over six billion.

Now we have to constantly produce new vaccines to protect this weak population, or else billions of people would die EVERY TIME a new virus mutation appears.

We've created a vaccine-dependent population. This is NOT strengthening the human species, and those who mindlessly champion immunization technology for its short-term benefits are the REAL nutcases.

— Doc Velocity







[edit on 1/14/2010 by Doc Velocity]



posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 11:44 PM
link   
I have a second cousin who has it (she has had it since she was ten and is now about 38 or something like that )and supposedly she also has a gene that has an antibody that fights it in her body (which is why she is still alive)they are testing her to see about a possible vaccine or a cure from her genes ..she said I may have this gene too (since it came from my mothers side) so they may be in touch with us (other relatives)if needed ..We will know more soon .I will keep yall informed.


I dont have a problem with stem cell research for good purposes as long as they are using LIVE Adult willing participants .(not dead unborn babies).

This is my cousin and a documentary of her story (I dont think the part where she found out she has a gene that could possibly cure is in this because she just found this out this last weekend) I searched and searched and could not find a full version of this documentary sorry..If anyone can find one I would really appreciate it ...since I did not even know till this weekend that she did this documentary (we havent seen eacother in years and only recently connected up again on facebook GO FACEBOOK lol) ..........

www.risenshinemovie.com...



posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 12:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Simplynoone
she also has a gene that has an antibody that fights it in her body (which is why she is still alive)they are testing her to see about a possible vaccine or a cure from her genes ..she said I may have this gene too (since it came from my mothers side) so they may be in touch with us (other relatives)if needed

Hate to break it to you, but there have been many, many cases of people with natural immunity to HIV/AIDS over the years, dating back to the early 1980s. I mean, there are a handful of prostitutes in Africa who have unprotected sex with HIV/AIDS carriers every day, but they don't get HIV/AIDS. They have been studied and studied and studied for nearly 30 years.

In all that time, no vaccine has surfaced, even though the antibodies have been retrieved and synthesized from immune individuals.

So, it aint happening, there's no "magic bullet" for HIV/AIDS and there won't be. It's time to modify our behavior, stop wasting time and raising false hopes with elusive "cures" that will not strengthen our species.

You also have to remember that manmade immunization is NOT TRANSFERABLE from mother to child. If it was, we wouldn't have to get our kids immunized against various diseases for which we ourselves were immunized years earlier. So, while natural immunities can be transfered between mother and child, manmade immunity just does not flow between parents and children.


— Doc Velocity



posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 03:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Doc Velocity
You know, I understand how an HIV-positive person might "feel offended," but, frankly, as a species, we can't afford to pander to people's personal "feelings" when it comes to lethal and incurable diseases.

It's too bad if you're offended, but we have to take steps to deal effectively with HIV/AIDS in the future, because we're not "curing it"...

Funny, why don't the Centers for Disease Control and the World Health Organization stop pushing cures for incurable viruses such as HIV, and start advocating intelligent behavior??

Because every expert on the subject knows that HIV is a virus spread by specific behaviors. It is not communicable by airborne means, you can't catch it from a toilet seat, you can't catch it from a mosquito bite, and you can't even catch it from an open-mouthed kiss.

The HIV virus has such a short life outside of a warm human bloodstream (mere minutes), the only way you can contract it is by injecting the living virus directly from one warm human body into another. That means only through sexual contact (especially through anal sex) or by sharing a contaminated syringe.

That's it.

The "freak" instances of infection — for example, a bleeding HIV carrier dripping live blood into your mouth or onto an open wound, or a nurse pricking her finger with an HIV-contaminated syringe — are so rare that you can count the number of actual instances on the fingers of one hand. That's just a fact.

So, you can't "accidentally" catch HIV... You have to make an appointment to catch HIV. In short, you have to make a conscious decision to engage in high-risk behavior. You're just not going to catch HIV otherwise.

Instead of fighting a losing battle, concocting "vaccines" for a virus that can and will mutate, why don't we advocate sexual abstinence and abstinence from sharing syringes??

I mean, I think we could eradicate HIV/AIDS in one generation simply by ramping-up education on high-risk behavior.

Show kids the photos and videos of the horrendously plague-ridden AIDS victims and TELL the kids, without parsing words, "THIS is what happens when somebody ejaculates sperm into your rectum" and "THIS is what happens when you have promiscuous sex" and "THIS is what happens when you share syringes"...

We can't sugar-coat this any longer and pretend HIV/AIDS is somehow "curable" — It's NOT.

The only thing we CAN do is modify our behavior.

Do Not Do THIS or You Will DIE.

Do Not Do THAT or You Will DIE.

PERIOD.

Are we so far gone that we can't modify our personal behavior?

— Doc Velocity
[edit on 1/14/2010 by Doc Velocity]

None of my many points were based on being offended after the first line of my response. All the rest seems to have gone over people's heads.
Linking HIV to death was tried in SA in early HIV-prevention campaigns and they were ineffective to having the opposite effect. It makes people fatalistic and uncaring regarding their own behaviour, and spreads misinformation. It lead to situations where the first open people like Gugu Dlamini were murdered out of misinformed fear, and almost a low key civil war when HIV-poz people organized in self-defense.
The main form of transmissin in Africa is vaginal and not anal sex, the same sex that is meant for pro-creation.
Currently there is an "ABC" campaign - abstain, be faithful and condomize, so what you are saying is part of the prevention campaigns. The most effective people in these campaigns are HIV-positive people because they demonstrate the reality and presence of the virus.
People with some seeming immunity include individuals from the Western gay epidemic in the 1980s who may have some genetic protection. Here a group of prostitutes remained immune as long as they were exposed to infection, but the immunity seems to fall away when they find other jobs, which implies some kind of natural vaccine or activation of the immune system by repeated exposure. However, these individuals are very rare and they cannot prevent social collapse in heavily infected countries without treatment. Children born infected will die before they procreate, so the chances of them passing on immunity is slim to zero.

[edit on 15-1-2010 by halfoldman]



posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 10:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Doc Velocity
 

So far the whole debate around HIV-vaccines is useless, since there is as yet none. That does not mean we should forgo a search for a vaccine or cure, because if scientists gave up this quickly, we'd have no treatments for anything.
It is not true to say anything defines HIV at all: life or death.
For many there is effective treatment, and they will struggle for it, so to say "death" is not correct any more.
You cannot say it brings death - a few individuals have some immunity, so Doc Velocity your argument is contradictory: you cannot equate Aids with premature death and then say maybe not for some (who are immune)! Your initial mega-phone statement said "death" (wrong these days in any case), and suddenly lots of people are immune? What kind of mixed-message is that?
Because the virus changes so quickly there is also not infinate treatment (as the original OP pointed out, the six drugs available in the poorer countries will become ineffective, while the richer countries have 20 regiments to choose from).
But let's ignore our EVOLUTION for a moment, and consider how the virus evolves, no matter how it got there.
HIV is evolving and coming from new species, since the root of HIV (the bush-meat industry) has never been addressed.
So lately the Green Monkey and Chimps are no longer the only viral cause, HIV strains are now spreading from GORILLAS to HUMANS, and this is also probably another new strain edition.cnn.com...
When will humans leave the rainforest and animals alone?
Name me one major virus that came from a plant? So who causes all this? Whose selfish eating habits lead to all this misery?




[edit on 15-1-2010 by halfoldman]



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 08:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Distinction
 


There was a theory(Mentioned in the 80s by Radio Moscow)that HIV was created in a Biological Warfare lab in the US in the late 60s.



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 11:33 AM
link   
reply to post by MDSJR1967
 

I'm undecided on the man-made HIV/Aids theory as yet.
The problem for me is that the man-made HIV conspiracy is often combined with HIV-denialism. The latter claims that drugs or poverty causes the immune deficiancy called Aids, and that HIV is a harmless carrier virus, it furthermore claims that immune-boosting foods can cure HIV, and that ARV treatments are poisonous.
Well, I have have seen ARVs work, and how people die pitifully without them, even rich people who are not on recreational drugs and eat well.
Now, increasingly I look at the scenario and believe the cause of Aids as man-made can be seen seperately from Aids-denialism.
Even some authors who believe the Simian-origin of HIV theory now argue that shadowy man-made efforts were involved. For example, during Polio vaccines in the congo (late 1950s) thousands of people were vaccinated with one single needle (see for example Edward Hooper's tome: "The River").
Then in the late 1960s Kissinger gives a speech on over-population and reducing the "useless eaters".
Next we have Hepatitis-B vaccines injected in the US gay community, and suddenly: presto - HIV epidemics!
So I doubt the arguments that it was created from sheep lentiviruses and such. I think it was something natural they found and they helped it along.
It does make for a perfect conspiracy virus, consider:
- it affects mainly gays, prostitutes, heroin addicts, prisoners, blacks, US minorities and poorer nations - people that the WASP powers woiuld like to disappear in any case
- the treatment remains a life-long dependence and is available conditionally on the goodwill of the powers that be; make them mad and life support can be terminated
- the issue of morality can be raised to stigmatize entire groups for natural human desire in a blatant game of political manipulation, even while key religions demonize condoms, which avoided a full-blown hetero epidemic in Western countries
But I repeat: it was probably heightened and perhaps altered to affect certain groups in laboritories, but the true origin is natural.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join