Advance in Quest for HIV Vaccine

[AlphaFrog]

Originally Posted by WaxOff

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?

Good god, are people still this clueless about AIDS nowadays? I think this why it's still such a problem, because the initial shock factor has worn off, and people can now get drugs to live a relatively long life, so it doesn't seem like such a big deal, so people aren't educating themselves. IT IS A BIG DEAL. REAL. BIG. DEAL.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by AlphaFrog

Good god, are people still this clueless about AIDS nowadays? I think this why it's still such a problem, because the initial shock factor has worn off, and people can now get drugs to live a relatively long life, so it doesn't seem like such a big deal, so people aren't educating themselves. IT IS A BIG DEAL. REAL. BIG. DEAL.

But people believed it up to the 19th century! Why not today?

(And though I've heard that there may be an increase in unsafe-sex as treatment for HIV and AIDS has advanced, I think the biggest issue is it's still seen as a disease that people 'deserve' to get because of their actions.)

[WaxOff]

Originally Posted by AlphaFrog

Good god, are people still this clueless about AIDS nowadays? I think this why it's still such a problem, because the initial shock factor has worn off, and people can now get drugs to live a relatively long life, so it doesn't seem like such a big deal, so people aren't educating themselves. IT IS A BIG DEAL. REAL. BIG. DEAL.

I am asking questions to debunk myths based on how the disease is spread versus created. I'll admit that I'm not educated as much as I'd like to be on the topic of HIV and AIDS. But over the years I've heard conspiracies and theories and blatant bull@h!t about what the virus is or is not. Everything ranging from "it's God's curse on the gays" (Bull$h!t) to the introduction of a different Y chromosome into the bloodstream (theory) and even it being a product of government funded chemical warfare (conspiracy theory).

But in the 25-30 years since the outbreak really took off, no one has ever come forward and said "We have found that the virus is created by conditions x and y combined with agitation from z." I may not have a degree in biomedicine, but how is it illogical to think that knowing what creates the virus can help find its cure? Don't you have to know what's wrong in order to fix it?

[Psi U MC Vito]

Originally Posted by WaxOff

I am asking questions to debunk myths based on how the disease is spread versus created. I'll admit that I'm not educated as much as I'd like to be on the topic of HIV and AIDS. But over the years I've heard conspiracies and theories and blatant bull@h!t about what the virus is or is not. Everything ranging from "it's God's curse on the gays" (Bull$h!t) to the introduction of a different Y chromosome into the bloodstream (theory) and even it being a product of government funded chemical warfare (conspiracy theory).

But in the 25-30 years since the outbreak really took off, no one has ever come forward and said "We have found that the virus is created by conditions x and y combined with agitation from z." I may not have a degree in biomedicine, but how is it illogical to think that knowing what creates the virus can help find its cure? Don't you have to know what's wrong in order to fix it?

We don't need to know what creates the virus. From my understanding doctors still don't really understand how viruses are even possible and do what they do. That being said they now how to help protect against them.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by WaxOff

I am asking questions to debunk myths based on how the disease is spread versus created. I'll admit that I'm not educated as much as I'd like to be on the topic of HIV and AIDS. But over the years I've heard conspiracies and theories and blatant bull@h!t about what the virus is or is not. Everything ranging from "it's God's curse on the gays" (Bull$h!t) to the introduction of a different Y chromosome into the bloodstream (theory) and even it being a product of government funded chemical warfare (conspiracy theory).

But in the 25-30 years since the outbreak really took off, no one has ever come forward and said "We have found that the virus is created by conditions x and y combined with agitation from z." I may not have a degree in biomedicine, but how is it illogical to think that knowing what creates the virus can help find its cure? Don't you have to know what's wrong in order to fix it?

There is not really an excuse for you to think that viruses spontaneously appear following the swapping of needles or engaging in sex. You're theoretically college educated. I don't believe that you asked it to dispel the myths of others.

HIV somehow mutated and spread to humans 30ish years ago (or spread to humans before that and mutated into its current virulent form later). The fact that we don't know the details of that mutation incident doesn't change the fact that it happened. (It doesn't even matter if it was intentional - tin foil hat - or not.) The flu did the same thing, the cold did the same thing. The reasons we can't vaccinate for HIV but can for the flu have nothing to do with its origins and everything to do with its mutation rates and the characteristics of retroviruses. Not to mention the public perception of HIV as a 3rd world /bad behavior disease.

[WaxOff]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

There is not really an excuse for you to think that viruses spontaneously appear following the swapping of needles or engaging in sex. You're theoretically college educated. I don't believe that you asked it to dispel the myths of others..

The two examples I gave are two of the most common ways the virus is transmitted. Correct? I could've listed other ways to swap blood and other bodily fluids if you like. For instance, are we sure that clean blood transfusions or organ transplants are safe? What if some of the viruses in this world are caused by the body trying to reject the foreign substance? Can you tell me with 100% certainty that they are not?

But getting to my point, which I failed to bring across, is the virus, any virus has to start from somewhere or something. They have their own specific genetic makeup. Their own DNA. If scientists can trace the DNA of our species and countless others back to their origins, why can't they do it with this or any other virus? Why can't they then use that information to help fight it?

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by WaxOff

The two examples I gave are two of the most common ways the virus is transmitted. Correct? I could've listed other ways to swap blood and other bodily fluids if you like. For instance, are we sure that clean blood transfusions or organ transplants are safe? What if some of the viruses in this world are caused by the body trying to reject the foreign substance? Can you tell me with 100% certainty that they are not?

But getting to my point, which I failed to bring across, is the virus, any virus has to start from somewhere or something. They have their own specific genetic makeup. Their own DNA. If scientists can trace the DNA of our species and countless others back to their origins, why can't they do it with this or any other virus? Why can't they then use that information to help fight it?

THAT IS NOT HOW VIRUSES WORK.

Seriously. How did you pass biology? DID you pass biology? You're on the internet, it is full of information. Go read some of it before you come back and try and talk about it again.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by WaxOff

What if some of the viruses in this world are caused by the body trying to reject the foreign substance? Can you tell me with 100% certainty that they are not?

Yes?

The mechanism for rejecting foreign bodies (specifically w/re: organ transplants) is so well-known that we have drugs to help prevent it (with varying degrees of success). Just because the immune system is attacking the new liver, for example, does not believe the liver is acting in the same way as a virus.

Put another way: your immune system will attempt to break down a splinter that is stuck in your finger. That does not mean that the splinter is causing a virus, right? Why would you assume, then, that other interactions with the body/immune system would "cause" or produce a virus?

But getting to my point, which I failed to bring across, is the virus, any virus has to start from somewhere or something. They have their own specific genetic makeup. Their own DNA. If scientists can trace the DNA of our species and countless others back to their origins, why can't they do it with this or any other virus? Why can't they then use that information to help fight it?

We can map the genomic structure of HIV pretty easily. You seem to miss the point though - the human genome has been "mapped" fairly successfully for years, but that doesn't mean humans have been "traced back" to some origin point. Wouldn't it be nice if we did? All those Texas schools could get back to actually teaching proper biology of evolution . . . what a world.

However, just because we know the physical structure, that doesn't magically unlock a cure - everything in science exists in context, and the context in which HIV exists (namely, the human body, and more specifically attacking the immune system) is inordinately complex.

I worked in a virology lab that worked with gene therapy techniques for cancer treatments - we did extensive work with HPV, a much simpler virus than HIV. You'll notice that HPV vaccines are just now becoming prevalent, and only for the most important strains - that's after nearly 30 years of work. Cancer and HIV both encounter a key problem: how do you stop reproduction without killing the host? How do you interact favorably with genetic mutation/insertion in ways that don't feature consequences worse than or on par with the initial issue?

For every one assay that shows any success, 25 fail - and no amount of historical knowledge would really affect this at all. Ever. Mapping the structure of HIV has been done. Finding the origins would be largely a fool's errand, one that is MUCH more important for epidemiologists and sociologists than for those looking for a cure.

[qbt1990]

Originally Posted by WaxOff

But in the 25-30 years since the outbreak really took off, no one has ever come forward and said "We have found that the virus is created by conditions x and y combined with agitation from z." I may not have a degree in biomedicine, but how is it illogical to think that knowing what creates the virus can help find its cure? Don't you have to know what's wrong in order to fix it?

I took a class on HIV/AIDS this year. We do know the origin of the virus, it comes from SIV - the primate version of HIV. But that doesn't matter as far as finding the cure goes. HIV is a retrovirus, it permanently embeds itself in the DNA of every cell it infects. Every time a cell multiples, the HIV multiplies. They have, however, been experimenting with cutting out the portion of DNA where the HIV exists, but this would obviously be very difficult to do on the entire body. HIV lies dormant in cells for years and it just hides itself in mass quantities in certain areas of the body. At this point a cure is a long way away, IMO.