Scientists find way to "disarm" AIDS virus

page: 1
6

log in

join

posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 01:34 PM
link   
Scientists find way to "disarm" AIDS virus



(Reuters) - Scientists have found a way to prevent HIV from damaging the immune system and say their discovery may offer a new approach to developing a vaccine against AIDS.

Researchers from the United States and Europe working in laboratories on the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) found it is unable to damage the immune system if cholesterol is removed from the virus's membrane.

"It's like an army that has lost its weapons but still has flags, so another army can recognize it and attack it," said Adriano Boasso of Imperial College London, who led the study.

The team now plans to investigate how to use this way of inactivating the virus and possibly develop it into a vaccine.


Click link for remainder of story.

edit on 20-9-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 01:34 PM
link   
Another step in the fight against AIDS. This comes on the heels of the gaming community resolving an issue in 3 weeks that scientists spent a decade working on.

It seems that progress is really starting to pick up in the fight against AIDS.



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 01:37 PM
link   
I thought the DRACO vaccine was all ready to do this. Man, prayers for all the souls sent who physically had to go thru it with this in 3d smh.
edit on 9/20/11 by Ophiuchus 13 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 01:51 PM
link   
Is this like the progress against fighting cancer I've been hearing about since the 1980s?
Half the people I know over age 50 have some type of cancer, and by the time I'm retirement age, it will be 1 in 2 chance of dying from cancer.

Not holding my breath when it's obvious they shelf cures for the profits from treating symptoms.



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by JibbyJedi
Is this like the progress against fighting cancer I've been hearing about since the 1980s?
Half the people I know over age 50 have some type of cancer, and by the time I'm retirement age, it will be 1 in 2 chance of dying from cancer.

Not holding my breath when it's obvious they shelf cures for the profits from treating symptoms.


Is it not better to have a glimmer of hope rather than none at all? This stuff makes the news, and is followed closely by not only people who are affected, but by doctors as well as scientists who are working on their own solutions.

This info gets released, and other scientists take this information and apply it to their own research to advance it. As you see this is not a pharmaceutical company releasing this information.

The way things are going I doubt the people would simply read and then ignore this information. You will see people beating down the doors if that occured.

Not everything is some grqandiose sinister conspiracy.
edit on 20-9-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)
edit on 20-9-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Maybe you're right. Maybe our fights against these diseases are supposed to get worse as time goes by.
Makes perfect sense to me.

I lost a parent to breast cancer so I'm quite familiar with the whole ordeal after diagnosis, as well as the options given to cancer patients vs what we all see available online. Doctors and hospitials will not allow alternative treatments/ possible cures because insurance won't cover it and there's a monster pile of regulations and liability issues.



Most important part is at 1:40, listen closely....


edit on 20-9-2011 by JibbyJedi because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


HIV-AIDS is prion related.

ALL prions require cholesterol to propagate - and ALL prions hijack the cells' machinery to create cholesterol. But ALL cholesterol is not bad. So on the surface, yeah, removing the cholesterol from the virus (or other cells') membranes seems like a good idea - but is it? Really?



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 03:32 PM
link   
reply to post by JibbyJedi
 


Interesting video... Question, and this is meant with all due respect. I understand the anger with the pharam companies, but they are a business. Should they be forced to on a project that might not pan out, and on the off chance it does, wont be able to recoup the loss of the R and D / trials / approval?

The video talks about a potential wonder drug against cancer, but to date its only been used in animals, not humans. There is no guarantee it would work in humans.

With that being said, Government is in the business of looking out for the welfare of the people. Why not petition world governemts for small donations to get the testing done. That way, once done and if successful, it can be handed out to everyone world wide?

The dilema I face when asking myself these questions is - We know why busineeses are preent - to make money. They are not required to give away charity, or to engage in anything that would better humanity. To place that label on them only sets us up for failure when they decline.

If anything these types of research should be done as far away from pharam companies as possible. Advancing medical science outside of the boardroom would not only be a boon for humans, but would possibly put some of those pharams out of business, or force them to partner up and change their business model.

To drive the last point home, scientists in the HIV-AIDS case relied on gamers, not pharams, to assist in solving the problem.

Whats to prevent that from becoming the new business model? Instead of spending hundreds of millions over a decade, they can spend 100k and get an answer within 3 weeks. Heck I would like to see a non profit set up that specifically targets the gaming community to help advance this stuff faster for global human benefeit.

The results should be posted / shared to anyone, world wide, to expedite the possibility of medical cures / breakthroughs.

Again, forcing the pharam companies to change or be left behind.

When we keep hitting a brick wall, we either go around it, or, as a last resort, you blast your way through it.

reply to post by soficrow
 


We won't know until we see how this discovery affects those questions. Is the discovery cholesterall specific? Would it be possible to develop something that only targets one type of cholesterol?

I remain optomistic because a week or so ago we didnt even know what we know now. 1 question took 10 years to be answered. We have now moved onto the next question...

Good.. Bad.... we moved on. If this pans out then we might be closer to a cure. If it doesnt pan out then we know that thie line of possibility is no longer viable, allowing resources to move into a different direction. The research and exclusion of this info could very well lead to another ah ha moment.

something that might not have been possible if this discovery never existed...



posted on Sep, 25 2011 @ 09:48 PM
link   
I really liked the army analogy it gave, it can help put it into perspective for laymen. I really hope these scientists continue to analyze the options they find. Any lead helps...





top topics
 
6

log in

join