GreekChat.com Forums - Advance in Quest for HIV Vaccine

GreekChat.com Forums (https://greekchat.com/gcforums/index.php)

- News & Politics (https://greekchat.com/gcforums/forumdisplay.php?f=207)

- - Advance in Quest for HIV Vaccine (https://greekchat.com/gcforums/showthread.php?t=114668)

Advance in Quest for HIV Vaccine

Quote:

In the latest development, U.S. government scientists say they have discovered three powerful antibodies, the strongest of which neutralizes 91% of HIV strains, more than any AIDS antibody yet discovered. They are now deploying the technique used to find those antibodies to identify antibodies to influenza viruses.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...p_mostpop_read

I hope something can come from this, like a CURE!

Quote:

Originally Posted by PiKA2001 (Post 1952922)

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...p_mostpop_read

I hope something can come from this, like a CURE!

If not a cure, atleast a vaccine so we can drastically cut back on new HIV cases and try to get ahead of the disease.

have they ever figured out what actually causes the infection? Not how it's spread, but how it's created?

For example, can two homosexual men that both test negative for it have all of the monogamous, unprotected sex they want without risk of infection? Can two intravenous drug users that both test negative share all of the needles they want, only between themselves, without the risk of infection?

Personally, I think the sooner they find, or at least admit (if you listen to some conspiracy theorists), they'd be a hell of a lot closer, if not complete in finding the cure.

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaxOff (Post 1952971)

The answer to the above is yes -- two negative people cannot "create" HIV. No one really knows with certainty how HIV came to be.

CDC HIV/AIDS WTF

Quote:

The earliest known case of infection with HIV-1 in a human was detected in a blood sample collected in 1959 from a man in Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo. (How he became infected is not known.) Genetic analysis of this blood sample suggested that HIV-1 may have stemmed from a single virus in the late 1940s or early 1950s.

We know that the virus has existed in the United States since at least the mid- to late 1970s. From 1979–1981 rare types of pneumonia, cancer, and other illnesses were being reported by doctors in Los Angeles and New York among a number of male patients who had sex with other men. These were conditions not usually found in people with healthy immune systems.

In 1982 public health officials began to use the term "acquired immunodeficiency syndrome," or AIDS, to describe the occurrences of opportunistic infections, Kaposi's sarcoma (a kind of cancer), and Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia in previously healthy people. Formal tracking (surveillance) of AIDS cases began that year in the United States.

In 1983, scientists discovered the virus that causes AIDS. The virus was at first named HTLV-III/LAV (human T-cell lymphotropic virus-type III/lymphadenopathy-associated virus) by an international scientific committee. This name was later changed to HIV (human immunodeficiency virus).

For many years scientists theorized as to the origins of HIV and how it appeared in the human population, most believing that HIV originated in other primates. Then in 1999, an international team of researchers reported that they had discovered the origins of HIV-1, the predominant strain of HIV in the developed world. A subspecies of chimpanzees native to west equatorial Africa had been identified as the original source of the virus. The researchers believe that HIV-1 was introduced into the human population when hunters became exposed to infected blood.

For more information on this discovery, visit the NIH National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases press release.

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaxOff (Post 1952971)

Personally, I think the sooner they find, or at least admit (if you listen to some conspiracy theorists), they'd be a hell of a lot closer, if not complete in finding the cure.

They already have a cure: money.

http://tellmewhyimwrong.files.wordpr...ic-johnson.jpg

Quote:

Originally Posted by Senusret I (Post 1952972)

The answer to the above is yes -- two negative people cannot "create" HIV. No one really knows with certainty how HIV came to be.

Exactly. And didn't they recently come out and say that "Patient zero" wasn't really patient zero?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drolefille (Post 1952983)

Exactly. And didn't they recently come out and say that "Patient zero" wasn't really patient zero?

That's a fact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ga%C3%ABtan_Dugas

Quote:

Originally Posted by Senusret I (Post 1952989)

That's a fact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ga%C3%ABtan_Dugas

Ah thanks, I thought so.

/not even going to try and get into the origins

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaxOff (Post 1952971)

Personally, I think the sooner they find, or at least admit (if you listen to some conspiracy theorists), they'd be a hell of a lot closer, if not complete in finding the cure.

Wait, what?

How exactly would the Wolverine Origin Story (h/t Michael Bay) "complete" finding a cure? The virus is not impossible to isolate - we know what it is. The methods of transfer are similarly possible to isolate - as it is with almost every blood-borne virus.

We can create flu vaccines without knowing which primordial ooze created influenza. Why would AIDS/HIV behave any differently?

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaxOff (Post 1952971)

Personally, I think the sooner they find, or at least admit (if you listen to some conspiracy theorists), they'd be a hell of a lot closer, if not complete in finding the cure.

What is your background in biomedical engineering?

I frankly don't have any, so if you know something I don't know which makes your "Personally[comma]..." worth any more than mine, please do share.

Quote:

Originally Posted by KSig RC (Post 1954264)

Because influenza is a virus, and HIV is a retrovirus. All I know is that they are different, though i can't tell you why.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito (Post 1954760)

Because influenza is a virus, and HIV is a retrovirus. All I now is that they are different, though i can't tell you why.

Well, yes. That wasn't the point though. He means that we don't need to know the origin of HIV to be able to create a vaccine. HIV is obviously much more difficult to develop a vaccine for because of how fast it mutates and I'm sure a bunch of other biomedical reasons I don't understand either, but we don't need to know the origins.

But WaxOff apparently thought it was possible for HIV to spontaneously occur between non-infected drug users or gay men and thus I wouldn't even have gone as far as to question his opinion on this either.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drolefille (Post 1954771)

I read it as saying why we can't treat HIV even though we can make vaccines for influenza without knowing it's origins.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito (Post 1954778)

I read it as saying why we can't treat HIV even though we can make vaccines for influenza without knowing it's origins.

Nah I think he was just questioning WaxOff's claim.

"We can make vaccines for the flu without knowing where it came from, we don't need to know the origins of HIV to be able to vaccinate for it because we can already isolate it."