digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Doc develops enzyme that can destroy HIV

ibnlive.com — Dr Indrani Sarkar has has every reason to be excited. Her PhD thesis, which started in 2002 at the Max Planck Institute in Dresden, Germany, has thrown open the doors for developing enzymes that can destroy the dreaded Human Immuno-deficiency Virus or HIV within infected cells permanently.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • OpNash, on 10/10/2007, -4/+79Truly, Incredible.
    • NgrHader, on 10/10/2007, -25/+37And of course the drug industry will make sure this will never make it to the market
      • tracker198x, on 10/10/2007, -9/+34of course. they will sabotage her testing or only allow it to come through if it can be made so you need 20 yrs worth of $100 shots
        • Epyn, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I would love to see a corporation sitting on an AIDs or Cancer cure, I don't think there's a single thing that would cause as large an uprising overnight.
      • netdroid9, on 10/10/2007, -4/+21Phh, I never believed in that crap. The drug industry may not be the most altruistic of industries, but the cure will be made available by *someone* (although no doubt at a high price). Then the next company will develop their own cure and sell it at a lower price...
        • oxdeltaxo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Well there's something of a patent problem there, we haven't yet been able to develop a cure for hiv. What makes you think that someone can develop a second cure to avoid patent costs which the original company will inevitably set?
      • scotticus, on 11/11/2007, -0/+30There are no shortages of diseases to work on... I assure you that if this therapy proves promising, the technology will be licensed to a pharmaceutical company. They'll spend $500 million to $1 billion on clinical trials and if it succeeds, the drug will be sent to market. The reason there isn't a cure for HIV is because it's hard. There are literally thousands of scientists working on the problem, eager to take credit and win the nobel prize for curing a pandemic. If a cure were produced, I assure you it would be made available.

        • sigintop, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5I agree. It makes you wonder what some people's scenario for this is. That there's this MIB style group in the company that holds the cure for AIDs and only lets it CEO and politicians use it. That they'll sabotage her results and then develop it for themselves in an underground bunker.
      • arjie, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Don't worry, there's India and Brazil, just a little whiff of the truth and they'll make generic versions of the drugs.
      • IEatHamburgers, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7Oh, it'll make it to market. But they'll charge a price that would cost you all your worldly possessions, like $20K a treatment or something, because there is almost no price you wouldn't pay to get rid of HIV.

        *Note to self: if I ever catch HIV, move to Canada where the government can keep costs reasonable
      • cdahlkvist, on 10/10/2007, -4/+8Right. because there is no point curing disease. Drug companies like to perpetuate the problem. Much like they do with Syphilis, Gonorrhea and many others.

        Don't be ridiculous with your "everything is a conspiracy" attitude. There is money to be made off of this drug so some big Pharma will make it. Furthermore, it's better to cure someone of one illness since the longer they live the more likely it will be that they will need your drugs for other problems.

        A dead consumer is no longer a consumer.
    • oneoverzero, on 10/10/2007, -2/+12Is this possible?

      A first post on a story about a medical breakthrough that isn't pessimistic?
      • specialK16, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9Read the post above yours.
        • capiCrimm, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3indeed, some people have too much faith in humanity and more specifically digg.

          I hope they don't give you the cure just for that.
    • gthyb, on 10/10/2007, -6/+2The drug industry doesn't think a market of 39 million is not profitable?
      • TLAKABM, on 10/10/2007, -3/+11Cure it and their market is gone. Much more profitable to offer non-permanent treatment (which is what they do now).
        • scotticus, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9Right, like Gardasil, which cures 4 strains of HPV and prevents cervical cancer.
          • concertina, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Gardasil doesn't cure HPV. It's a vaccine. It prevents you from getting certain strains in the first place. A cure would be far better.

        • cdahlkvist, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5There will always be more people to treat. Syphilis and Gonorrhea can be cured but people still get it because of the numbers that don't realize they have it and then continue to spread it.

          There are plenty of drugs out there that cure diseases/ailments and big Pharma is still making money off of them.
        • blast_flame, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Which is why we need real capitalism not the watered down stuff we've got. If real capitalism someone would be able to release it without get expensive approval. Human greed would then take over, someone who wants a quick buck would then sell it. That's the great thing about real capitalism, greed cures greed.
          • fasda, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Oh yeah because that extensive testing doesn't save thousands of lives every year from being scammed by con artists who over nothing or worse poison.
          • scotticus, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2I hope you're kidding... the testing is important. I kind of wish we did the same degree of testing on our food as we do on drugs.

            Oreo's wouldn't pass phase III clinical trials...
    • ChiGGz, on 10/10/2007, -34/+2Homosexuals rejoice!
      • tubeblender, on 10/10/2007, -12/+4nice.

        ass.
        • greenlight2001, on 10/10/2007, -8/+3So you must be rejoicing, given the comments about his ass.
      • SuperCujo, on 10/10/2007, -1/+25Obviously the fact that the number of heteros with HIV outnumber ***** by a large factor means nothing to you. AIDS is still a gay disease to white bread America...
        • ICSU, on 10/10/2007, -3/+12white trash America
          • cdahlkvist, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1See my comment below made to ncapone. You truly are an idiot.
      • ncapone, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Yeah, as if women and children don't get HIV or AIDS. That's real plausible.
        • cdahlkvist, on 10/10/2007, -8/+1Uhh...it was spread into the hetero environment due to bisexuals. It WAS a purely homosexual disease until the cross contamination from people sleeping with both sexes.

          That's not a white-trash view, that is proven fact.

          I'm not blaming gays. Be gay if you want. Be straight if you want. Just be responsible.
        • hulez, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1children only get teh AIDS if they're GAY and enjoy teh buttsex with their DAD
          And lesbians get aids too but I find that sexy
      • ChiGGz, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1lol @ fags
    • hiphoc, on 10/10/2007, -12/+6How long before this person has an "accident".
    • sockdemon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+22You know you're onto something when you don't just cure a disease, you ***** destroy it.
  • ementis, on 10/17/2007, -11/+121his best invention since the flux capacitor?
    • MrZaiko, on 10/10/2007, -4/+49Ironically to destroy the HIV virus you need 1.21 GIGAWATTS
      • ltkerr0r, on 10/10/2007, -1/+16And a De Lorean
      • oneoverzero, on 10/10/2007, -0/+23GREAT SCOTT!
      • thugbear2005, on 10/10/2007, -0/+15where we're going, we don't need roads
        • LilJimmyNordin, on 10/10/2007, -14/+5C-C-C-C-C-COMBO BREAKERRRRR
          • andregriffin, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Don't post ***** like that unless you know what it means or when to use it.

            You fail.
          • Sinistocrat, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Or just don't post ***** like that.
          • redcyren, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1From ED's definition of COMBO BREAKER:
            "Just an irritating meme that is used when a certain thing goes on for a while to break the stupidity. It is stupid in its very nature, so it really adds to the stupidity in an irritating fashion."
            Sounds right to me. Sorry, dude... YOU fail.
        • EbilPhish, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3"where we're going, we don't need roads"
          Or protection :)
      • ReFracture, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11I'm sure in 1985 you can pick up plutonium in a local drug store!
    • DokGonzo, on 10/10/2007, -16/+9Um, I believe the correct spelling is JIGGAWATTS.
    • ISEEDEADPEOPLE, on 10/10/2007, -12/+2Arrogant ***** Its a woman not a man ! RTFA!
    • 60effects, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I don't know, his automatic dog feeder was pretty amazing.
    • shreela, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8Um, I believe the correct spelling is HER
    • blixt33, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0lmao!
  • MasterThief117, on 10/10/2007, -16/+137I'm not saying this doesn't work, it probably does, but this cure will also be shot down just like every other cure.
    I really hope I am wrong and this is actually passed and made into an actual cure.
    • bingobongony, on 10/10/2007, -17/+8I was wondering when the first pathetic tin foil hat comment would show up. Only took three comments.

      Hate to tell you, but insurance companies have just as much money and influence as pharmaceutical companies. If there is a feasible "cure" for a disease, they would be ALL OVER IT. It would save them billions.
      • kelly, on 10/10/2007, -17/+6It's said that a cure for cancer was halted because more money is made treating patients for the disease.
        • crossmr, on 10/10/2007, -1/+25a lot of ***** gets said. Your point?
      • oneoverzero, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7It would make them billions. assuming they get it exclusively.
      • 1iProd, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Obviously they have to buy the patent for a name for it if they want to get it available to the public. Jeeze, haven't you read Survivor?
      • BootsElectric, on 10/10/2007, -1/+20There was nothing tinfoil worthy about the post, every year, paper thin tv's are "almost here!!!", a cure for aids/HIV is found, Duke Nukem Forever comes out, and an affordable hover car is "just" around the corner. And every next year, none of the ***** happens, is it so wrong to play the realist and assume the ***** isnt going to actualize itself anytime soon?
        • ArmandoM, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1He wasn't saying it as if it's some sort of vaporware like paper thin tv's, Duke Nukem, etc. He was implying that the drug companies will conspire to stop a cure from happening.
        • jenpirante, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0As much as that would suck, it's not that far-fetched. However, I'd like to see a cure happen as much as anyone else.
      • Gabberwok, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1The problem with HIV isn't finding a treatment, it's finding a cheap one. Assuming this ever turns into a drug (which it probably won't, as it's a protein so it will be very expensive to produce safely and hard to deliver inside of cells - which is necessary for it to work), it will never be able to be produced reliably in a generic form that the majority of HIV infected people can afford. Magic Johnson may outlive us all, but the average sub-Saharan African with HIV will not until there are more effective affordable treatments. It's sad, but I would not be surprised if evolution kicks in before the pharmaceutical companies - at which point they will try to patent the mutation and use it to treat rich people in the West.
    • Murdats, on 10/10/2007, -1/+17ok, america is corrupt, however not every country has a corrupt medical system (aswell as police, government, military, ... but that isnt the current issue)
      so what is to stop this being released in another country?
      • danconia, on 10/10/2007, -2/+16Exactly. People who say cures are being suppressed have holes in their theories. There are plenty of uber-rich people who would pay millions upon millions to be free of HIV... the demand is incredibly high and the supply would be whatever the person with the patent makes it. There is a lot of profit for whomever comes up with a true cure, regardless of what conspiracies Diggers come up with.
        • kenoticc, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Not that I agree completely with the conspiracy theories, but the current profit of HIV drugs is extremely high. Even the uber-rich could only pay a few billions for a cure. Compare that with the billions they get year after year.
      • betterth, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12You guys totally missed the point. He said shot down, not "covered up and destroyed buy big pharm". He means, most things that show signs of success in small control groups or in animals, usually show a MUCH lower percentage of success in wider ranges of tests. They also can have effects too dangerous, like the possibility of shutting down your immune system, bonding with the HIV to make a super virus lol.
    • Frnnkdlxx, on 10/10/2007, -9/+4I was thinking the same thing... You know the CIA isn't going to like this....
      Now they have to create something new.
      • Coniferous, on 10/10/2007, -5/+2HAHAH, what? you cant be serious - i mean, i don't like the way the country is turning out much either, but randomly spouting out nonsense like this isnt helping. go back to playing deux ex. or come up with some proof - your call.
        • Frnnkdlxx, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2Did you know up to 90% of the world thinks that AIDS was manufactured by man? And who is evil enough to do it? The term is cheesy, but fitting, "The White Devil". Get over it and get over yourself and you'll begin to see.
        • Coniferous, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Wow, there are so many things wrong with that statement too.

          1)Even if 90% of the world believed that it was man made you still have presented no proof
          2)even if the 90% number WAS accurate that doesn't make it true. Every last person on this planet could believe in Santa Claus and that wouldn't make him any more real.
          • hobonetweaver, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0But there are some more abstract concepts that DO become more real as more people believe them. Take Karma for instance. As a simple example, imagine a Wallet-Returning Karma which states "if I return someone's lost wallet, I will be more likely to have my lost wallet returned to me."

            Now if you live in a culture where you are the only one who believes in Karma, then the odds are slim that your lost wallet will be returned to you, because nobody else believes in the Wallet-Karma and they'll just keep your wallet. BUT, if 90% of the people in your culture believe in Wallet-Karma, 90% of people will be likely to return your wallet if they found it (in hopes that wallet-Karma will shine on them in a similar way one day). It is a form of culturally-bound reality.

            So you see, there are some abstract concepts which literally do become more real as more people believe them. If you wish to discover them all, this is a good place to start: [ http://www.erowid.org/plants/mushrooms/mushrooms.shtml ]
        • Iam9376, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0@Frnkdixx

          And 83% of all statistics are made up.
      • Iam9376, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3It makes me sad to think the common intelligence has been lowered to the level you exhibit here.
    • morsosky, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1it wont; and I say that as a md/phd student, not as a pessimist
  • vraa, on 10/10/2007, -33/+14And she's an Indian woman.
    The world really isn't only America?!
    • ltkerr0r, on 10/10/2007, -3/+21She probably works at an outsourced hospital :)
  • RJNavarrete, on 10/10/2007, -17/+2Poor guy, the author of the article thinks he's a "she!"
  • tracker198x, on 10/10/2007, -37/+3ummm...no way this is real. The doctor is a woman for crying out loud!
    • theone3, on 10/10/2007, -3/+9I know! Isn't it dreadful that those lunatics would make something like this up just to advance their ridiculous cause! Honestly, this whole allowing non-land-owners the right to vote has gone on long enough as it is - but allowing women (bless their diminished hearts) the right as well! It's practically treason. Our country is increasingly the hands of its public - what an outrage! Next thing you know, we'll be giving those bloody Negroids the right to vote too!

      * hint hint *
    • fiveonefive9, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1are you a ***** retard?
  • Dan005, on 10/10/2007, -20/+12Won't ever be available. Cures will never exists in this world again because people are to greedy. Unless it is an immediate global crisis.
  • mikemil828, on 10/10/2007, -26/+131The Christian right won't be happy about this. They were counting on HIV on stopping humans from having sex so darn much.
    • theone3, on 10/10/2007, -12/+7Hey, I'M counting on HIV to stop humans from having sex so darn much. There are too many people on this planet already and there are only two ways of fixing that problem.
      • NSResponder, on 10/10/2007, -1/+26So, are you going to shoot yourself in the head and take one for the team?

        -jcr
        • Iam9376, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3best digg response i've read all week!
        • theone3, on 10/10/2007, -9/+3As long as you promise I can take you out next jcr.
          • Koldkompress, on 10/10/2007, -0/+12I'd like to see you do that if you're killing yourself first
          • DaffyDuck, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Your stupid response only increased the ownage.
          • NSResponder, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1You can *try*...

            -jcr
          • theone3, on 10/22/2007, -0/+1Oldest self-deprecating joke in the book guys.
    • ementis, on 10/10/2007, -1/+51true, but genital warts are still on their side.
      • scotticus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6actually, there's a vaccine for that.
        • ChristianMagic, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7What has this world come to?
      • thegreeneyedkri, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Don't forget herpes. No way to get rid of that.
    • kp606, on 10/10/2007, -5/+8Now that just a tad bit ignorant...
      • mikemil828, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4Why are they so opposed to condom use then?
        • kahrytan, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2It's against the Bible. I challenge you to find it. It won't say condom or anything like it. Little more subtle then that. It is in the old testament.
        • dcmjzero, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4because they do not believe in birth control. their policy has nothing to do with std's.
        • Iam9376, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2You have to understand, the bible was written at a time when their religion didn't quite rule the world, so it was necessary for them to increase their population for their war machine.
        • myak, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Hey, kahrytan, if you like the old testament so much and depend on it, let's discuss some other things. Like, for example, 2 Kings 2:23-2:25. Let me quote it:
          23 Then he went up from there to Bethel; and as he was going up by the way, young lads came out from the city and (A)mocked him and said to him, "Go up, you baldhead; go up, you baldhead!"
          24 When he looked behind him and saw them, he (B)cursed them in the name of the LORD. Then two female bears came out of the woods and tore up forty-two lads of their number.
          25 He went from there to (C)Mount Carmel, and from there he returned to Samaria.

          I'm not sure what translation are you familiar with, it's New American Standard Bible and there are many others but the message is, I suppose, clear. Talk about love and mercy. Oh wait, in the old testament God isn't exactly a loving and merciful father, now is he? And that's where the new testament comes in, with the new alliance between God and man, where God is full of forgiveness and love and mercy and other stuff. But, do we cancel or the stuff written in the old testament then? If we don't, then I seriously doubt God's mercy and love. If we do, what are we talking about? Where in the New Testament Jesus says: "yo, don't use condoms, condoms are bad m'kay"? Or did I miss something? (I didn't, I'm quite familiar with the bible and its interpretation in main Christian denominations).

          As of the condom use and the old testament point of view. I'm not sure what exactly are you talking about, I could interpret some things in favor of using or not using birth control. I may only guess that what you're referring to is Genesis 38:9 and following (Onan's situation). As we all know (or not), Christians think the masturbation is bad (m'kay) and birth control is bad (m'kay). Most of these beliefs are based on that particular quote:

          9 Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother's wife, he wasted his seed on the ground in order not to give offspring to his brother.
          10 But what he did was displeasing in the sight of the LORD; so He (I)took his life also.

          Yeah, ok, fine. But in what way was the LORD displeased? I mean, why? Let me quote something:
          8 Then Judah said to Onan, "Go in to your brother's wife, and perform your duty as a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother."
          Now, things are getting even more cloudy for most of you at the moment I suppose. Little explanation: when our friend Onan was alive, it was a duty (there was a law saying it) that when woman's husband dies, his brother is obliged to have sex and children with her. Onan obviously didn't like it so he thought "hey, wtf, I'm not doing this *****". This was, in fact, against the law and the LORD didn't like it (m'kay).
        • LucidDr34m3r, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1If you think about it though, it also sounds pretty funny because it seems to imply that he still had sex with her, he just used coitus interruptus as a form of contraception.
          • myak, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0That depends on translation, I'm not really familiar with the original text. In the most popular Polish edition of bible text, there's no word about him having sex with her but I suppose it may be wrong as it is in many other things.
      • ahoy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1That's what's called a joke.
        • kp606, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1It's funny when you know it's not true. That's the humor.

          The sad part is I'm positive many people would look at this and nod, without even laughing.
    • skyshock1, on 10/10/2007, -9/+3Specifically gay people.
    • etnu, on 10/10/2007, -3/+8If they really want to make people have less sex, they should encourage them to get married.
      • nate263, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Zing! You should right for Yes, Dear.
    • Frnnkdlxx, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Did you hear that congress is looking at 1 child policies here in America?...
      • AeonTorpor, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7They can't stop illegal immigrants... you think they'll stop em' from having sex? HAHA!
      • Iam9376, on 10/10/2007, -5/+0And yet we still have to deal with you. sad. :((
      • goldfishey, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3what, the same congress that seems to be so pro-life? How are they gonna work that little miracle? - You cant have the babies, but you cant not have the babies.
        What do they suggest - enforced sterilisation? Oh man China is gonna be writhing on the floor, with tears streaming down its face in fits of laughter!
      • alexanEmpire, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4I didn't hear about that. Proof? Article of some kind?
      • hierophantus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1That's not even plausible as something you heard from *someone else* who made it up.
    • alexanEmpire, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2"They were counting on HIV on stopping humans from having sex so darn much."

      Yeah right....tell that to all those girls in catholic (high) school.

      *ba dum cha!*
    • GraceHead, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5reminds me of the bumper-sticker I once read: "AIDS is the cure"
      Take it from a Christian, that is really sick.
    • Juicey, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Actually we're counting on AIDS to create more Christians. Only once people are threated by their own mortality do they suddenly believe, that or win a championship game.
  • sybarite, on 10/10/2007, -19/+1All you have to do to make the front page of Digg is just say oh this MIGHT cure HIV. Buried, lame.
    • SquigglyP, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11wtf man, i can understand being a teeny bit of a jaded Digg user, but THIS is the sort of news that Digg was ***** born on. It's the kind of news that you really wish the mainstream media would get a hold of and get people interested in, instead of just throwing up new Iraq numbers all the ***** time. Digg has gone downhill, to be sure, but there's still some good ***** to be found on it, and this is actually one of the better things i've seen posted here for some time.
      • scotticus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The thing is, the articles that get posted to digg on science/health issues are usually over-hyped stories coming out of academia. Everything looks like a cure in early development because clinical trials haven't been done. Of the dozens of potential drugs that a large pharmaceutical company produces or licenses in a year, only a few go on to become actual drugs. Most things fail in clinical trials because they're toxic or they just don't work in people.
      • goldfishey, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0True - but just because the drug cant be used in people -doesnt mean they havent learnt something significant. It may not be news as far as the sick and dying go - but for the academics and researchers trying to figure it out - these breakthroughs can be huge!
        • scotticus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1They can be. I don't think this one is... and this is why people think that the FDA and pharma are burying cures. People see these stories, assume a cure is there, and then when it doesn't come to market, they assume "the man" is behind it, when really the original discovery was just an academic exercise which would require decades worth of scientific elaboration before it could even be considered a possible therapy.
  • 13B1303, on 10/10/2007, -5/+26hooray now I can have uninhibited unprotected sex with.... sigh
    I hope it's real and saves a lot of lives though.
    • BrokenBrick, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Plenty of other STD's to worry about :-p Uncurable ones at that
      • EbilPhish, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Such as pregnancy, although they do have a cure for that too ☺
  • WhittierPoet, on 10/10/2007, -3/+10Bleh. While I'm really happy to hear her success, the data isn't something that can lead to a cure unless shown effective in-vivo models. Hopefully it'll be a success, but not every in-vitro to in-vivo model work as expected since there are so many conditional factors that are lost in the micro environment.
  • fearlessfx, on 10/10/2007, -0/+29Has this been confirmed by any medical journals or other sources?
    if this is true then this woman is a hero
    • Gabberwok, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3It's actually an article in this issue of Science (one of the big three science journals). This popular science article is bad though.
      • envygreen, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0no need to be a jerk about it. There are no publications by Dr Indrani Sarkar in pubmed database. sheesh.
        • Gabberwok, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0It does show up in pubmed... just look for Sarkar and HIV (or Cre if you're getting fancy), first names are almost always abbreviated or left out.
    • JimmyChooLove, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2The actual paper of the finding is here if any diggers are biologically inclined:
      http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/316/5833/1912
      read it and it looks like the real deal, folks.
      • envygreen, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0thanks for posting the link :)
      • Gabberwok, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0It's a real article, but not a real cure anytime soon (if ever). There's a big difference between what can be done in the lab and what can be done in the clinic.
  • nwoantibody, on 10/10/2007, -13/+3Perfect... cuz I hate condoms...
    • thugbear2005, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2i hope to god you lose the ability to have kids b/c i dont want more of you running around
    • Myonosken, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2?? You don't wear condoms because you worry your partner has HIV. I hate to admit this, but that's the last thing going through my mind. More OH GOD NO ***** KIDS OR CLAP.
  • MrZaiko, on 10/10/2007, -8/+11.21 GIGAWATTS!??????????!!!!!!!!????????
    • stklaw, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11.21 gigawatts is able to kill every germ and virus in existence.
    • DokGonzo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Great Scott!!!
  • Alex2, on 10/10/2007, -2/+18The real fun will begin when that 'sequence' the enzyme attacks is also part of someone's DNA.

    Wonder what happens to someone whose DNA dissolves?
    • mikemil828, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6They will dissolve into LCL......
      • spatulacity, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Not if they can keep their AT field up.
    • BrokenBrick, on 10/10/2007, -0/+22They become Gary Busey
    • kcap122, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1pray that your initials aren't H.I.V.
    • Jugalator, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Cancer?
    • DiggMasterJ, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Why would someone have the HIV genome encoded onto theirs?
      • goldfishey, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0well if they did - we would want to find them. Cos they would presumably not be dying from it.
      • catalysis, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2That's how HIV works. It inserts itself into your DNA.
    • DiggMasterJ, on 10/10/2007, -10/+1Why would someone have the HIV genome encoded onto theirs?
    • DiggMasterJ, on 10/10/2007, -10/+1Why would someone have the HIV genome encoded onto theirs?
    • DiggMasterJ, on 10/10/2007, -10/+1Why would someone have the HIV genome encoded onto theirs?
    • DiggMasterJ, on 10/10/2007, -10/+1Why would someone have the HIV genome encoded onto theirs?
      • LilJimmyNordin, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10*****, I wasted my combo breaker already.
    • Gabberwok, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Someone could easily have an integrated (defective) provirus of a similar type encoded in their genome, and then they could have a copy of a similar sequence in every one of their cells without really being infected, if it was inherited from their parents rather than a viral integration event during their lifetime. (Obviously HIV doesn't attack the germ line, but other viruses can.)
    • jefferson987, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Your DNA won literally dissolve, or at least not all of it. The reason the HIV genome would be encoded into a person is because HIV is a retrovirus; A class of enveloped viruses that have their genetic material in the form of RNA and use the reverse transcriptase enzyme to translate their RNA into DNA in the host cell. This particular restrictor enzyme will run through your sequence of nucleotides and search for the part that codes for HIV. Then just like scissors, it will cut that section out, leaving the good DNA with "Sticky Ends" so it is able to reattach itself.
  • scrugby, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7i'll wait until the double blinds have been completed, and at 5 - 20 years before realization its a little too early for hopes to be getting up... Although if this is tangible it could lead to a whole new way of treating illnesses
  • fober, on 10/10/2007, -13/+4Philanderers and Druggies rejoice!
    • tyaron, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10...And people who might have received tainted blood transfusions and people who's protection didn't effectively protect them, etc. If you don't get the underlying point, it's this: YOU'RE AN IDIOT! Take yourself out of the human gene pool.
      • m4csrgh3yk3v, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3...or make an enzyme to remove him from the genome
      • StephenMalkmus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Hahaha! Great post.
        Anyway (i think, can not be 100% positive about that), they happily analize all the blood that people donate to avoid that kind of things.
        (Sorry for the smartassnes)
        • concertina, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1HIV is detected only indirectly, so if a person was recently infected, their body won't have produced enough antibodies for the blood to test positive. So yes, they test, but the tests are rather imperfect ...
  • deathbyspatula, on 10/10/2007, -8/+3According to the article, this cure could be anywhere between 5 and 20 years in the future..
    20 years, eh?
    ...
    Hooray for finally being able to have safe unprotected sex when we're old and wrinkly!!
    • SuperCujo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Way to be selfish and not think of the half a million children born with HIV every year. When you are old and wrinkly, they'll probably be dead without this.
    • lucid270, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Enjoy your herpes, syphilis, and genital warts then.
  • Enderz, on 10/10/2007, -10/+2"In layman's terms, it's an engineered enzyme which recognises sequences in the HIV genome that is duplicated, integrated virus and by the process of recombination, it cuts out the virus from the genome," says she.

    layman's terms? I have a degree in Biology and that's hardly laymans term.
    • rtfizzle, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7i dont have a degree in biology and i was able to comprehend the meaning of the sentence completely. so i would say it is in layman's terms.
    • Mononuclear, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7They go over all this stuff in 9th grade Biology... You should get your money back from whichever school you paid for a degree in Biology..
    • akkibaba, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Where'd you go to school? The Tijuana Cigar Emporium and Institute of Science?
  • nairbil, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8even if it ends up on the market, the main problem will likely be the price of the treatment. I just cant see this as an end to AIDS problems in Africa. People have to be able to afford the treatment! Yes, it is a brilliant invention, but it may only end up benefiting the upper/middle classes, who may be able to purchase HIV medication already.
    • Mononuclear, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0In poorer countries they just make their own generic versions of the same drugs and sell them for a lot cheaper.
      • goldfishey, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Except for countries like Zimbabwe and other African nations - they are so poor and often war torn, they dont have the facilities to make drugs of any type. Add that to the myths that are widely believed in some places - such as that having sex with a virgin will cure aids. Nope - they will need aid from outside. A little stability on the inside wouldn't hurt either.
    • BrokenBrick, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Well hopefully some philanthropic organization will come along and try to make it accessible to those less fortunate :-p
    • SquigglyP, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2You're also forgetting that many countries out there have free healthcare, and there are a lot of countries and individuals who would gladly pay millions or billions of dollars to help cure the third world countries. So basically the poor people in the US are screwed... but then that's only if you could say that the insurance companies could find a way to worm their way out of agreeing to pay for a treatment that would completely cure someone. How many people with HIV can even GET health insurance tho? hmm...
    • citizen132, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Yes, it will probably only benefit the upper/middle classes at first. But over time, as it becomes more widely used and cheaper to make, it will filter down to a level affordable in the developing world.
    • peterA650, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0That's where people like Bill Gates step in ...
  • DarthDubbya, on 10/10/2007, -7/+0Soylent Green is people!
  • freakk123, on 10/10/2007, -3/+12If this is true, if this works out, if this truly is a cure, well, that's just wonderful. If not, well, hopefully it's progress. Regardless, this is a good thing. Hope is a good thing, if nothing else.

    And maybe I'm just too naive, but I believe that if a true cure to HIV were found, it wouldn't be bottled up by the pharmaceutical industry.
    But granted, I one of those "***** sheep" who believes that the US Government didn't plan out and execute 9-11 (and yeah, I've seen Loose Change, I've read the websites), so clearly I'm just too naive about everything.
  • Sfmobius, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7More than ever we are discovering multi-pronged approaches to combating the spread of HIV. Even if this doesn't turn out to be a total cure, it is an important discovery in the right direction. We can only hope it delivers in its entirety.
  • adinb, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Any words on a delivery/targeting system?
    • NoQuarter, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3You've hit the problem. It's all well and good designing an enzyme (the production issues are a big enough issue) but delivery is potentially far more difficult. Obviously we'd have to hope a liposome formulation would work and that the enzyme would survive in said liposome, the enzyme has to be stable enough to be stored before use and to survive inside the patient (neither of which is particularly obvious from the news article).

      Either way, this is a long time off (if it really works at all, forgive my scepticism).
    • catalysis, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Delivery is not the problem. The problem is cutting latent HIV genes out of the hosts' chromosomes. You are still HIV+ even if all the HIV viruses in your body are destroyed. There has been work on this, but there is still not a total solution.
    • TheMidnight, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Well, we're checking out this two meter exhaust vent....
  • andywebb95, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Exciting news.
    Bring on the R&D dollars!

  • ChiGGz, on 10/10/2007, -3/+10Meanwhile there's still no cure for HIV. Oh wait...
  • coolboy0286, on 10/10/2007, -6/+1This will probably be shot down because it isn't profitable.
  • Shandooga, on 10/10/2007, -13/+5The AIDS virus was created by US scientists to depopulate the earth. They will not allow a cure.
    • CompIsMyRx, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Wow. Either that was delivered with perfect sarcasm, or you are a ***** moron. I leaning towards the latter.
      • BrokenBrick, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1And in any case, homosexuality is a much better method. I second the moron vote
    • BrokenBrick, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Buttsecks?
    • SquigglyP, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1why create a virus to depopulate the earth if you're going to target gay people with it?

      i'm kidding of course.
  • ffleming, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3This is what I'm talking about. Future, here we come
  • vawksel, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10There are lots of things that can destroy HIV, just most of them destroy human tissue too, so they are not usable to cure a person of HIV.

    The question is, is his solution safe for use in humans.
    • SquigglyP, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2a better question would be "is it less dangerous than being HIV+" Safeness, i think, is relative at that point :P
    • CropdusterMcGee, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0her solution
  • shanevendrell, on 10/10/2007, -11/+3Yes! Break out and pass around the dirty syringes! It's unprotected anal sex for everyone! woohoo!
    • jedi0utkast, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4because everybody know AIDS can only be acquired through anal sex.... right?
      wake up is not 1981 anymore.
      • circuitron, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0believe it or not, as i was reading the comment below this i also pressed the wrong button. sorry about that.
    • ffleming, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1I meant to dig you up and hit the wrong button. Sorry.
      • SuperCujo, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Oops, I meant to digg you down.

        Hang on, I did.
    • 1337Einstein, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Granted, using dirty syringes to sodomize people could very well lead to disease, on that, you have a point.
    • navster15, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Antibiotics do wonders against bacteria. Guess that means I can drink all the tainted water I can handle!
  • drizzlelicious, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1This deserves a hopy crap
  • Stewmoney, on 10/10/2007, -5/+0NICE MORE MONEY FOR THE PHARM COMPANYS
  • TBagwell, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6says she
  • ericgonzalez, on 10/10/2007, -6/+1Not to discount the hard work here, but lauric acid in coconut oil does the same thing (something we've known for years now)
  • xSEED, on 10/10/2007, -10/+5he's gonna be killed soon
    • therightside, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4I hope someone kills you soon.
      • r2cole1, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Read the article dickbag. He is a she.
  • Frnnkdlxx, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6" "It's a beautiful approach, but like any other drug, this one too will take a few years to reach clinics — anywhere between five and 20 years actually. A lot of research has to be done because since one is working with a novel enzyme, one has to engineer the enzyme," says she. "

    Damnit... And I had my clothes off and everything....
  • Subterfug, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7"anywhere between five and 20 years actually."

    I've heard of these perpetually 5 years away type deals. Nasty stuff. Big pharma will find a way to triple that time.
    • catalysis, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3WTF are you talking about? This research is being done at the Max Planck Institute.
  • dfective, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4Lets pray. And hope the FDA does not get a reason to shoot this down. It was not too long ago that the FDA shot down two effective cancer killing drugs which used a similar approach. Two completely different companies. Saved the lives of many whom had no hope. They always find a way to knock off immune system building drugs for some reason. If I remember correctly one of the executives finally had it and left the board.
    • scotticus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3You're making ***** up. Knock it off.
  • skull24, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"According to the latest statistics given out by UNAIDS and WHO, there are close to 39.5 million people living with HIV/AIDS in the world and though it will be a while before an imminent cure is likely, Dr Indrani Sarkar's findings certainly hold out hope for the millions who are battling the disease across the globe." Cure? Not yet.
  • ZipMsp, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Does anyone remember TGN1412? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TGN1412
    • SuperCujo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2When you start dealing with 'novel' approaches when chasing cures, there are risks that things like that may happen. It seems all parties involved followed protocols properly, with the exception of the dosage timings. Regardless, the result would have still been that 1 person ended up in hospital due to the cytokine storm.

      Volunteering for a first-in-man medical study has got to be the bravest move anyone can do.
  • bradym80, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2The summary reads like a spam email.
  • LinuxGalore, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1With aids your not dealing with a single version and it has a nasty habit of mutating just when you think you have it nailed down. I hope this new discovery works but I have my doubts.
  • ikrit2006, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Side effects include dizziness, swelling, upset stomach, head aches, fever, lymphoma, and, in some cases, full-blown AIDS.
  • Vega310, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Bill Hicks' dream of people ****ing in the streets is one step closer to coming true.
  • WaterDragon, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3FTA
    "The biggest challenge with treating HIV today is that the virus becomes dormant and often develops resistance to HIV drugs."

    More likely, the biggest challenge is getting it past the big American pharmaceutical corporations, who are making huge profits from the present drugs. Of course, the FDA will side with them, ad try to protect their profits, at all costs.
    • scotticus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Actually, the biggest barrier is delivering an enzyme to the inside of a cell.

      If this were to become a drug (which it won't), it would most likely be carried to market by one of those big evil pharma companies via licensing.
    • catalysis, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1No, actually the biggest problem is that the virus becomes dormant. There is no need to make ***** up out of thin air with absolutely no knowledge of the subject when they tell you the correct answer right in TFA.
      • scotticus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Creating an enzyme that cuts viral DNA out of a chromosome is easy... creating one that cuts viral DNA out of the chromosome of a cell in hard. My comment comes with a greater understanding of cellular and molecular biology than that of a ***** Indian newspaper journalist.
  • Jugalator, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Another exciting part of this development is that it could possibly be re-used to other viruses, especially those that have grown resistance. That's the issue with HIV, but just imagine the possibilities if we can identify gene sequences like this instead of more blindly attack. We'd perhaps be able to develop specialized vaccines by detection of genes. If a resistant virus is detected that way, it could be applied a specialized treatment instead of more general, "blinder" treatments with possibly more side effects too.
    • Gabberwok, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0We've been creating very specific treatments for HIV for years (over a decade probably) now. The problem with specific treatments is that they are easier for HIV to evolve resistance to, as in this case it would probably require only 2 or 4 bp of change (a couple of identical nucleotide substitutions in each LTR) for the treatment to be rendered ineffective. The main problem is that proteins don't easily get inside of cells, much less inside the nucleus.
    • UdaiShinta, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Since there are 4 stages of the HIV Virus till it turns to AIDS, will the Tre enzyme be able to attack the virus in any of the stages or will there have to be different versions of Tre Enzyme to go with the different stages? or is there a "too late" signal that can't be dealt with?
  • SilverBlade2k, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Too bad Big Pharma will purchase the rights to this and bury it in favor of a 'management' drug...
  • lagrange, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2My ass is open for business!
  • Frnnkdlxx, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1What's up with the nuetralization of all of our diggs? All of our diggs are being dugg down and up to where its only 1's and 0's... wtf? DIIIGG BRIGAAAADEE!!!!
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 109 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.