digg

Join DiggAbout

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

Researchers Knocks Out HIV

sciencedaily.com — 'With the latest advances in treatment, doctors have discovered that they can successfully neutralise the HIV virus. The so-called ‘combination therapy’ prevents the HIV virus from mutating and spreading, allowing patients to rebuild their immune system to the same levels as the rest of the population.'

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Rubab, on 10/27/2007, -1/+130The immune system is rejuvenated and is apparently able to normalise itself, providing that the combination therapy is maintained. The moment the immune system begins to improve, the HIV-infected patient can no longer be said to be suffering from an HIV infection or disease, already declining in strength.
    • m3t00, on 10/25/2007, -3/+140"The only stipulation is that patients begin and continue to follow their course of treatment."
      So the drug companies are going to be happy too.
      • slashbot, on 10/24/2007, -1/+32Or how about the rest of those with HIV being happy that the virus doesnt get the chance to mutate again?

        People who don't follow the whole course of anti-biotics and anti-virals are the reason we are seeing more resistent strains
        • pseudononymist, on 10/24/2007, -5/+7antibiotics aren't for viruses
          • johndi, on 10/24/2007, -0/+1No, but anti-virals are. Improper use of either leads to resistant strains of bacteria (MSRA is the most talked about) or viruses depending on which type of drug you are using.
      • Winters, on 10/24/2007, -12/+41In the future you will probably start to see more and more diseases "knocked out" like this instead of actually cured. It's a good deal for them since the disease can spread and infect more people with both aids and financial problems. An actual cure would be really inconvenient for profits.

        Bonus points for making sure it's a cocktail of drugs instead of a single drug.
        • iticu, on 10/24/2007, -17/+19How would you cure it then?
          Don't be shy; go ahead and tell us.
          • adrianmonk, on 10/24/2007, -2/+28My sister, who is not an AIDS researcher but who does have Ph.D. in Biology, offered her opinion on AIDS one time. It was, essentially, "AIDS will never be cured. If you knew how the virus worked and what it does to the body, you would not think it could be cured."

            She may or may not be right. Maybe someone will think of something really clever. But the point is that if a cure is found, it'll be a very impressive achievement. Big pharma is not dragging their feet on this; it's just really, really hard.

            On a side note, apparently it would help if the current administration in the US hadn't slashed science funding to the point where labs are laying off people, closing, and moving offshore.
          • schoate09, on 10/28/2007, -18/+3I don't blame her, I mean we know NOTHING about the AIDS virus. But we do know quite a bit about the HIV virus. I also think you're full of *****.
          • StarlessKnight, on 10/24/2007, -0/+6HIV can be destroyed (not the entire virus strain--at first? Hopefully--as others will point out it is highly adaptive/mutative), its just we haven't figured out how, yet. Effectively neutralizing it, however, is a good step towards removing it from the host. Even if it turns out long down the road that HIV cannot, in fact, be removed from the body, the endeavor to do so, and save lives, will still have been a good cause.
          • techmaster, on 10/28/2007, -1/+10(this damn digg comment system sucks... I tried to direct reply, and got "your session has expired, please refresh the page before commenting" and refreshing, logging off/on doesn't help...but replying here seems to work)
            @schoate09: And I think you're a damn retard. We know nothing about the AIDS virus but we know quite a bit about the HIV virus? Have you ever looked at what those two acronyms even mean?
            AIDS = Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome
            HIV = Human Immunodeficiency Virus
            The last word in each acronym is key. AIDS is a syndrome, HIV is a virus. In other words, AIDS is the disease that the HIV virus causes. It's similar how the HPV virus can cause cervical cancer. Cervical cancer isn't a virus, but it is often caused by the HPV virus. Don't try and argue with people, and tell them that they're full of *****, in regards to a subject, such as biology, that you obviously know nothing about.
          • Audacitor, on 10/24/2007, -0/+4@schoate09 (posted down here because once again there is NO REPLY LINK)
            Someone who thinks there is such a thing as the 'AIDS virus' should not be telling other people they're full of *****. AIDS (acquired immunodeficiency syndrome) is a state of the body caused by HIV, not a virus or disease.
          • rarson, on 10/24/2007, -0/+1He was trying to be a smartass, but he didn't realize that he was the only one who called it "the AIDS virus." He figured that mentioning AIDS in one sentence and then "the virus" in the next meant the poster was talking about "the AIDS virus," but obviously he was the only one dense enough to come to that conclusion.

            But anyway, I do think that if someone comes up with an actual cure, it will be made. The bragging rights alone would be incredible. That would be an amazing discovery. Not that I don't think this isn't amazing in itself.
        • ngmcs8203, on 10/24/2007, -2/+7Chemotherapy... another "treatment" that drug companies are happy about??? Give me a cocktail if it will cure me of a deadly disease or virus or whatever. A one shot cure would be great, but if a concoction of drugs will fix me, consider me signed up.
        • norman619, on 10/24/2007, -0/+20A viral infection can't be cured. You may cure one strain but a virus mutates. That's their nature. This makes them a constantly moving target. This is why we can't put an end to the common cold or the flu. Read up on what a virus is and what makes viral infections impossible to truly cure. Not all the ugly realities of medicine are a conspiracy.
          • johndi, on 10/25/2007, -0/+2Smallpox was eradicated, and polio could be if clerics didn't spread rumors that the vaccination is an American plot to sterilize Muslims. Measles is another viral disease that could be eradicated. Mumps could join the list if the vaccine was more effective. It depends on how quickly the virus mutates. HIV, the common cold, and flu ... are here to stay. Read on on families of viruses and how some can be cured and some never will.
      • dbug, on 10/24/2007, -11/+4Very true. I'd go so far as to say that they were/are deliberatly looking for (=funding) ways to knock out HIV instead of actually curing it.
      • djphatjive, on 10/24/2007, -2/+1http://www.who-umc.org/DynPage.aspx?id=29568

        Why on his site does it not say he cured it?
      • SpeedSteamBoat, on 10/24/2007, -5/+2(mostly)@ dbug & Winters
        Oh, are we making totally unfounded, slanderous assertions about the entire field of scientific research again? Let me try.

        ALL SCIENTIFIC RESEARCHERS ARE RICH PIGS JUST LOOKING FOR YET ANOTHER WAY TO MAKE THE COMMON MAN COUGH UP SOME MORE CASH! EVERY RESEARCHER IN THE WORLD TAKES MONEY FROM BIG PHARMACEUTICALS TO NOT FIND CURES BECAUSE THAT MAKES SENSE!

        Also, while we're being sensationalist attention whores, why not the obligatory:
        BUSH DID 9/11!

        Hahaha, always good for a laugh. Are we done here?
      • AkshayGenius, on 10/24/2007, -0/+1I think some time ago on digg I read about an Indian scientist and its team had found a cure of AIDS or HIV, but nothing happened, I hope this doesn't fly away into nowhere too....
      • grr74, on 10/24/2007, -0/+1No, this is not for the drug companies. If a patient does not complete treatment, the treatment fails. This is why when you are prescribed e.g. antibiotics, take all the pills even if you are feeling better. If you stop treatment, you go into relapse and the disease becomes stronger and builds resistance to said medication.
    • norman619, on 11/13/2007, -0/+83So is this a lifetime treatment and not a cure right? At least that's what I get from the article.
      • pendrachken, on 10/24/2007, -1/+10Hmmm perhaps it is, BUT if this truly stops the virus from attacking and mutating in cells after a while the person should become virus free. I wonder if / how long this process would take?
        • ZaZ2137, on 10/24/2007, -4/+2long after you're dead the aids virus can lay dormant for a very, very long time.
        • 2Deluxe, on 10/25/2007, -1/+6Every 7 years you have a completely 'refreshed' body and don't retain a single cell you did 7 years previously. So i guess 7 years?
      • korashime2001, on 10/24/2007, -1/+40At least it's not fatal anymore. I remember growing up with everybody mortally afraid of touching counter tops in strange places. AIDS and HIV was so frightening, even if it's a pharmaceutical boon, it's better than what we had.
        • norman619, on 10/24/2007, -0/+6If this is true then it's pretty much turned into something similar to diabetes.
        • therightside, on 10/24/2007, -6/+4Like in 20 years when we will be laughing about how we all though global warming would kill us!!
          • supermansuper, on 10/24/2007, -0/+5If the world is not destroyed in 20 years, that is :-)
          • xutopia, on 10/24/2007, -1/+1You say that like it's the heat that will directly kill you. The reality of global warming is that the effects are going to be quite different than what you may expect. Different temperatures mean different viruses, bacteria and different weather patterns.

            If you live in an area that hasn't had a flash flood in centuries and you suddenly find yourself carried off by water and your house destroyed by a tornado you might change your mind about global warming.
          • techmaster, on 10/24/2007, -0/+7Global warming won't kill us, George Bush will. But thanks to the iPhone, Ron Paul, and Leopard...there is hope on the horizon. ;)
        • angedinoir, on 10/24/2007, -2/+9Except that people that have it will start being careless and spreading the disease even more. If they just died, then it wouldn't be a problem.
      • OneLess, on 10/24/2007, -2/+5It's odd because they give the impression that after the immune system normalizes, you're cured, but still say you have to take the treatment for the rest of your life. If it's true that it doesn't actually get rid of the virus, all they've done is create the echinacea and Nyquil of HIV/AIDS.
        • therightside, on 10/24/2007, -0/+21And provided a way for millions of people to live healthy lives years beyond what they otherwise would have.
        • BlueSkyfish, on 10/24/2007, -1/+5Well yeah, drug companies will never let an actual cure go through. Where's their money then?
      • rome747, on 10/23/2007, -0/+1If researchers call it therapy, then it is not something you can fix quickly.
      • Christerray, on 10/24/2007, -0/+1Same principle as diabetes. You can't cure it, but at least you can go on living.

        I'm sure people won't mind continuing treatment, and as more researchers get on the bandwagon, simpler methods will be developed.
      • dani8559, on 10/24/2007, -0/+1Well, at the very least, it means you will not develop full-blown AIDS.
        HIV (and many other viral diseases) are measured by your viral "load." They count the amount of copies in a milliliter of blood, and if you keep yours very low, you're at the least risk of developing AIDS. They monitor it regularly for those with HIV, to watch the disease's progress. There are treatments that have been available that can reduce your load to so low that tests can't detect it, but that does not mean it's gone. All viruses start out with one copy, right? ;)

        I know some people who have worked as counselors for those with HIV/AIDS, and said that some patients have had sexual contact with their monogamous partners, with very low viral loads, and never exposed that partner to HIV. On the other hand, though, there were some people who did the best they could to protect and even one accident lead to exposure and contraction, and they tended to have higher viral loads.

        I'm assuming if you have a very low viral load for the rest of your life, it's not cured, but you can rest knowing you're at the least risk for advancing into development of AIDS.
    • Damaso, on 10/25/2007, -1/+20This sort of multi-drug therapy has been around for quite some time. Not really much new news here. There are dozens of drugs and types of therapies out there to treat HIV to near zero levels, but as soon as the host is exposed to another strain of HIV, or discontinues the therapy (some of the drug combinations make the patient's appetite almost zip, have severe gastrointestinal issues, etc) it explodes and becomes resistant to the medications, meaning new and usually more need to be perscribed.
    • BlackJackJester, on 10/24/2007, -4/+11Um, I'm no bio major, but the whole reason our immune system cannot fight off the virus is because it mutates, right? If it stops mutating, then our immune system should be able to clear it out of our system? Would that be a correct statement?
      • slashbot, on 10/24/2007, -0/+14I thought the HIV cells attacked our immune cells thus rendering them incapable of mounting a defense regardless of whether the virus mutates or not.

        The mutation would however alter the efficacy of drug therapy as the virus adapts to it.
        • dragon76, on 10/25/2007, -0/+24HIV "attacks" nothing. It's not like bacteria. HIV cannot replicate on its own, it needs to insert its genetic code into leukocytes and when the leukocyte attempts to replicate, an HIV virus and one leukocyte is produced, instead of 2 leukocytes. There are a lot of drugs that can stop the process of reverse transcriptase where chemically it "unzips" the DNA chain that HIV produces that bonds the HIV genetic code with the leukocyte. There are also drugs that try to prevent the creation of the code, these are called protease inhibitors. As it stands RIGHT NOW, there is one pill you can take, once a day (Atripla) that has both protease inhibitors and reverse transcriptase inhibitors. This research isn't really anything new unless you think Cialis is new compared to Viagra.
        • moogoo71, on 10/24/2007, -0/+0He is correct, and the virus tends to hide in areas difficult to treat, like bone marrow. Patients will receive a blood result of
    • angedinoir, on 10/28/2007, -0/+15It may prevent the infected person from having problems, but it doesn't stop them from being infectious.
    • CircleFusion, on 10/25/2007, -1/+4Tommy Morrison.
      That is the name that comes to mind when I read this. He was supposedly able to pass recent HIV tests, claiming that the previous test that ended his boxing career many years ago was a false positive. I'll bet he's using therapy like this to reduce his symptoms to below testing thresholds.
    • sybarite, on 10/24/2007, -0/+2I'm really not sure how this is news... Combination therapy has been around since 1996.
    • skyscape, on 10/25/2007, -4/+1infection is an infection no matter how weak it is. The problem with this articles is that what if an already mutated HIV virus get caught by you again? Which means now you have to viruses instead of one. My solution. Dont have sex before marriage. Be committed to one wife and enjoy life.
      • kamikaze87, on 10/24/2007, -0/+3"Dont have sex before marriage. Be committed to one wife and enjoy life."
        /BRAIN OVERLOAD MALFUNCTION. SHUTTING DOWN IN...3...2...1.
      • georgio5, on 10/24/2007, -0/+3Well they have made great advances since the backward time you obviously live in.. there are these things called condoms that are proven t o be effective in preventing HIV.. We will never be able to stop people from feeding their natural inhibitions, just ask married people like Reverend Haggard, Strom Thurmond, Larry Craig and Bill Clinton.. We can't stop people from having sex, we never will.. accept.it and lets keep educating people about safer sex with condoms.
        • Scrappy1850, on 10/24/2007, -0/+2how do you ask Strom Thurmond? with some kind of scary telephone?
        • kamikaze87, on 10/24/2007, -0/+1Why the Strombotron 3000 of course.
  • LittLeBunny2o5, on 10/26/2007, -153/+37Good-bye condoms.
    • rnwen2750, on 10/24/2007, -9/+106'Cause HIV/AIDS is the only sexually transmitted disease...
      • objectcode, on 10/24/2007, -4/+15he grew up without a daddy, just so you understand
        • raynar, on 10/29/2007, -0/+13I took a pee and a shrimp fell out. Is that bad?
          • kufu91, on 10/24/2007, -0/+10better than ants
          • NozE8, on 10/24/2007, -1/+1Only if you are allergic to shellfish. Otherwise, throw another shrimp on the barbie!
          • edwartica, on 10/24/2007, -0/+1Wow, so that's what you call yours?
      • vic4, on 11/06/2007, -0/+0I think this person is a complete idiot.

        Good Bye Condoms? Jesus Murphy, I'm 14 and im not even that dim.
    • 350Zed, on 10/24/2007, -5/+54I guess you've never heard of syphilis, gonorrhea, or unwanted pregnancy.



      But thanks for completely missing the point.
      • skeeterbug84, on 10/28/2007, -0/+13I think he was joking...
      • crzdmn, on 10/24/2007, -17/+1LOL to the using condoms to keep from knocking someone up! Condoms have less than a 70% effectiveness due to misuse, abuse, and in store tampering. Think about that next time you wrap up in a rubber to keep from creating a mini spawn.
        • Jwoey, on 10/24/2007, -0/+8"Due to misuse, abuse, and in-store tampering"

          In-store tampering? What's that? Like a guy walking around poking needles in all the boxes? I seriously doubt that happens often enough to greatly affect that stat. That leaves misuse and abuse, and as long as you use it properly, you don't have to be worried by the 70% stat, you can be comforted by the '98% effectiveness rate' that's printed on the box.
          • edwartica, on 10/29/2007, -0/+2Maybe he's the one doing the in-store tampering. Remind me not to buy condoms in a store he frequents.
        • yuravian, on 10/23/2007, -0/+370% is still way more effective than 0% anyway. Combine that with a diaphragm or contraceptive spermicide sponge, and you are talking about exceedingly low chances of an accident, probably near to or better than the 98% chance Jwoey is talking about.
        • forgiste, on 10/24/2007, -1/+3Well if YOU don't misuse or abuse it, then what was your point again?? Besides most places the condoms are behind the counter.. nobody with a needle would be back there.
        • dknighton, on 10/24/2007, -0/+5Care to provide a link for your stat? 70% sounds made up.

          And quite frankly, the percentage of people who can't figure out how to put on a condom....they're the ones who we LEAST need to be breeding. ***** idiots.
        • zeitgueist, on 10/23/2007, -0/+3Yes and you can get AIDS easily from tears. Please do not get your facts from religious groups/abstinence organizations
        • zediker, on 10/24/2007, -0/+4forgive poor crzdmn, he was the target of one of those misinform the kids and scare them so they dont have sex, sex-educations.
      • dknighton, on 10/24/2007, -5/+1"Unwanted pregnancy" is not a sexually transmitted disease. It's a consequence of irresponsible action. Quit making excuses for people who refuse to take responsibility for themselves.
        • leftyslament, on 10/24/2007, -0/+2Actually, unwanted pregnancy is only one hundreds of sexually transmitted diseases. Others include gonorrhea, French gonorrhea, genital orcs, taint apnea, eel *****, jenga dick, shwarma, stegosaurus balls, rheumatoid buttrosus, or even AIDS!
      • pcslugster, on 10/24/2007, -0/+1dont forget, crotch critters!
    • schnikies79, on 10/24/2007, -2/+24Yea the Aids might not matter but you will still wake up with something you can't clean with Ajax and an SOS pad.
      • JanYpe, on 10/24/2007, -2/+36Children?
        • capiCrimm, on 10/23/2007, -4/+3"you can't clean with Ajax and an SOS pad."
        • crzdmn, on 10/24/2007, -0/+7I don't wash my kids mouths out with a bar of soap, I make them eat some Ajax and suffer for a few days!
      • jasonsawtelle, on 10/23/2007, -0/+2AJAX and SOAP would be a better pun for this site wouldn't it?
    • UtilityPole, on 10/24/2007, -5/+91If the girl's on top, she can't get pregnant.

      Right?
      • pyrotix, on 10/24/2007, -0/+5You must be thinking of Coca-Cola and taking a shower.
      • TripleAStacked, on 10/23/2007, -2/+0Haha that movie was jokes...

      • yuravian, on 10/24/2007, -1/+11Well yeah man, it's gravity.

        (kidding...)
        • c0baltfish, on 10/24/2007, -1/+0Dugg you down for putting kidding in parenthesis.
      • TheUngod, on 10/24/2007, -1/+4Of course, it's physics
      • Namaha, on 10/24/2007, -1/+3Well that's true, everyone knows that.
      • dontaskagain, on 10/24/2007, -1/+24I'm still waiting for the mythbusters to test that one
      • ninja0, on 10/23/2007, -0/+3thats right! due to this effect called "gravity" it just fallows out, so you're safe :)
      • SierraAlpha, on 10/24/2007, -0/+1Well everybody knows that...
    • thatspsychotic, on 10/24/2007, -0/+11Notice how it's not actually getting rid of the HIV virus from the body... even though the person will not have symptoms of AIDs, they will still be HIV positive, thus can transmit it.
      • Imagine3, on 10/24/2007, -0/+14But if cells do not reproduce themselves, they die off. So if it is not mutating and regenerating, eventually the amount of infected cells will die. This is similar to how your bones constantly regenerate (if you are 45 years old, you have had 3 sets of completely new bones). Your organs regenerate on a much quicker scale. i think 9 months to a year.

        Not saying this is a end all cure, but it is positive momentum in the correct direction.
        • hmunkey, on 10/23/2007, -0/+1Actually that might not even apply. Right now this is only preliminary.
    • theOster, on 10/24/2007, -5/+9am i the only one that actually laughed at the joke?
      • JibberGeorge, on 10/24/2007, -3/+5No the rest of these morons were too blinded by how smart they are to realize it was a joke.
        • hmunkey, on 10/24/2007, -1/+2Thanks! I love being called smart! :-)
      • cliffdogg, on 10/24/2007, -0/+1Nope. Definitely busted a gut, hahaha
    • F1R3DUP, on 10/24/2007, -2/+8GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR HERPES!
      • gonegoogling, on 11/07/2007, -1/+5you can get herpes with a condom ***** the only cure for herpes is if your crabs eat them all
        • r2pro, on 10/24/2007, -0/+3First thing I've read on the Internet that actually made me laugh out loud in a long time.
      • hmunkey, on 10/23/2007, -0/+1I hope you get herpes for the caps.
    • edwartica, on 10/24/2007, -0/+2Umm, you don't really need one for "self-service" to begin with.
    • SpeedSteamBoat, on 10/24/2007, -0/+0I Dugg this as a prime example of how to troll socially significant posts. Bravo, and cheers on your over 100 Diggs down!
    • setledownslappy, on 10/24/2007, -0/+4HILARIOUS! Get a sense of humor nerds.
  • Frightful, on 10/25/2007, -18/+7Whoa.
  • harir91, on 10/25/2007, -55/+8HAHA good bye condoms. the problem is, not everyone knows they have hiv until it becomes aids so this doesn't really solve the issue considering most places in africa have no way to try and cure aids.
    • 350Zed, on 10/27/2007, -9/+12I guess you've never heard of syphilis, gonorrhea, or unwanted pregnancy.

      But thanks for completely missing the point.
      • RainNIU, on 10/24/2007, -0/+5Pete and Repete were on a boat. Pete fell off, who was left?
    • aspec, on 10/23/2007, -0/+9Not that if you're sexually active with multiple partners, you shouldn't get tested regularly... because... you know... it'd be responsible.
      • gbarger, on 10/23/2007, -6/+3Yeah, because most of the people that are sexually active with multiple partners certainly are responsible.
        • cdahlkvist, on 10/23/2007, -2/+5??? wtf?

          Yes, some of them are.

          Just because you can't have more than one partner (or any is my guess) or you think that sex must require a romantic relationship does not mean everyone else shares your view or that they are sexually irresponsible.

          Prude.
          • jacosta00021, on 10/23/2007, -3/+2allow me to be the first to say.... A/S/L?
    • Shirleycakes, on 10/23/2007, -2/+3As much as I think the first half of his comment was stupid, he has a point about Africa.
    • ChzPlz, on 10/23/2007, -0/+7"The only stipulation is that patients begin and continue to follow their course of treatment."
      At about $2000/month for the drugs, for the rest of your life, this is one hell of an expensive price to pay to go bareback.
    • SuckMyDigg, on 10/24/2007, -0/+1He didn't need condoms anyway. Sex requires two people.
    • KUVUNA, on 10/24/2007, -0/+0bravo to researchers
  • HauntedToilets, on 10/25/2007, -15/+6Wow!
  • sUGArDawg, on 10/28/2007, -148/+8I don't care. Screw Africa
    • DiggzDE, on 10/24/2007, -4/+49Your mom did that already.
      • ZenMojo, on 10/24/2007, -3/+6I've got the pictures. (And the bruises.)
      • scoot2006, on 10/24/2007, -2/+12Rough. Just like your mother likes it Trebek.
        • cdahlkvist, on 10/24/2007, -1/+6I'll take ANAL BUM COVER for $1000, Trebek.
        • Namaha, on 10/24/2007, -0/+6...That's "An album cover."
    • techmonkey4u, on 10/24/2007, -22/+8reported
      • norman619, on 10/27/2007, -5/+29For what? Being stupid? Grow up.
        • ozanweb, on 10/27/2007, -7/+5Maybe it was for being offensive?

          dumbass
          • Encablossa, on 10/24/2007, -0/+1NO u

            Digg's comment system is degrading down to You tube's level.
      • sUGArDawg, on 10/27/2007, -14/+8Awww...boooooohooooo!! :(
      • iticu, on 10/27/2007, -3/+8Because you really care about Africa, dont you Tech?
      • HayString, on 10/27/2007, -2/+9I can only imagine what you nerds who say "reported" were like in grade school.
      • Roryking, on 10/24/2007, -0/+1ha ha, too bad it doesn't do anything and you remain powerless
        COMPLETELY POWERLESS I SAY, MUAHAHAHA

        see you at the polls in 2008, tool
    • delafere, on 10/24/2007, -4/+25Too bad your dad didn't use a condom that one time.
    • PaulPinfield, on 10/23/2007, -1/+5Well, at least you haven't invaded Africa yet.
      • IllBeBack, on 10/23/2007, -0/+1When they find the oil I'm sure we will then.
        • delafere, on 10/24/2007, -0/+1They have found the oil, but Chinese oil companies are working with the government of Sudan. Not US/UK/Euro oil companies. Thus, Darfur continues.
    • razishaban, on 10/23/2007, -0/+2Bad idea.
    • MasterThief117, on 10/24/2007, -0/+4You don't care because you will never have to worry about sex.
    • KanchoBukkakeku, on 10/24/2007, -0/+1Hell yeah, ***** those stupid click clacks, let them taste the steel!
      • c0baltfish, on 10/24/2007, -0/+1That was an intelligent response. Thanks for being on the internet sir.
    • c0baltfish, on 10/24/2007, -0/+1Yeah, because Africa is the only continent that has HIV.
      • dpcamp, on 10/24/2007, -0/+1are you suggesting other continents have the HIV??? because my arian race class tells me otherwise...
  • spiritflare1, on 10/25/2007, -20/+7
    drug cocktails are OLD OLD news.
  • krets, on 10/27/2007, -8/+415Researchers knock...
    A researcher knocks.
    • Speed, on 10/24/2007, -41/+3Question: Why the hell do you even care? Does being a grammar nazi really make you feel big?
      • FBombAndy, on 10/24/2007, -9/+2It's called "copy-and-paste." Jerk...
      • Sibre, on 10/23/2007, -1/+2Well, if it does, then the +33 diggs will only reinforce that.
      • airwalkery2k, on 10/24/2007, -2/+29Grammar makes the difference between a Digg that can be taken seriously as a news source, and just a website where kids post links.
        • r2pro, on 10/24/2007, -2/+2You must be on crack. Digg as a news source is as credible as the sources for the stories that make the front page. The comments section is well known as a wretched hive of scum and villainy. Correcting a comment's grammar like it was a scientific paper being submitted to Nature just adds to the reputation. Me calling you a crack head even furthers it. Get it?
      • isage, on 10/28/2007, -2/+21Speed, its people like you who are leading to the slow demise of our English language in the Internet age. When words are no longer important, there is no importance to the words.
      • krets, on 10/24/2007, -1/+7I do it just to make you angry.
      • ninja0, on 10/24/2007, -0/+10you're just upset because you don't be doing none of that grammar stuffs.
      • Speed, on 10/24/2007, -3/+2airwalkery2k:
        Look at most of the stories on Digg. It'll never be taken seriously when every 5 stories is about the iPhone, and it's impossible to make an anti-Apple statement without being dugg down.
        isage:
        "Speed, its people like you who are leading to the slow demise of our English language in the Internet age. When words are no longer important, there is no importance to the words."
        "It's" not "its". Also, that second sentence is a giant redundancy and makes no real sense. You just said the same thing twice.
        Don't accuse someone with an A- in English of destroying the English language unless you can type it properly yourself.
        • rarson, on 10/24/2007, -0/+1Nobody cares about you're A-.

          And yes, I did that just to piss you off.
      • claytorris, on 10/24/2007, -4/+0"It'll never be taken seriously when every 5 stories is about the iPhone..."

        Apparently all that is keeping you from that A+ is conjugation. How does it feel to call out a Grammar Nazi, catch him in a ***** up, and ***** up yourself? Does your teacher let you get away with contractions like "it'll"? By the way, bragging about your A- in High School English might impress the skanks you are trying to finger *****, but no one else is impressed. You have to be half a retard to get anything less than a B in High School English.
        • Lathen, on 10/24/2007, -0/+3Skanks aren't impressed by grades you *****. If they were, me and half of Digg might actually have GOTTEN SOME ***** ACTION IN HIGH SCHOOL.
          • claytorris, on 11/15/2007, -0/+0Getting some implies getting laid, not fingering. I would never imply you or Speed could get laid.
        • Speed, on 10/24/2007, -1/+1You're right, but an A- in university level English is actually pretty impressive.

          And that is a valid contraction, as long as I don't use it for formal writing (which I don't).

          Oh, and it makes your writing sound weak if you have to swear constantly to prove your point.
          • claytorris, on 11/15/2007, -0/+0Stories are about the iPhone. A story is about the iPhone. Jerkoff
    • Goner, on 10/24/2007, -2/+16Childrens do learn if you let them...
    • blackjack75, on 10/24/2007, -0/+11They've been knocking for a while now. Open the freaking door.
    • pyrotix, on 10/24/2007, -2/+98Knock knock.
      Who's there?
      Researchers.
      Researchers who?
      Researchers who knocks out HIV!
      • ninja0, on 10/27/2007, -6/+1hahahahaahahaha.... that was amusing...
    • Iamironman, on 10/24/2007, -4/+3glad to see someone passed 3rd grade english
    • TheRingo, on 10/23/2007, -0/+2In other news, conjugation knocks out the respect of one Emesee, submitter on Digg.
    • Jawmht, on 10/24/2007, -7/+1Does being a grammar nazi make you feel like a big boy?
    • XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, on 10/30/2007, -0/+18The scientist's last name is Researchers. I ***** you not.
      • lesfleanut, on 10/28/2007, -0/+4Logged in to digg you, man of many X's.
  • heartcoldfusion, on 10/26/2007, -43/+59Amazing. I was under the impression that pharmaceuticals would never let a cure to HIV be released because they can make so much money off of patients' suffering.
    • Ascus, on 10/26/2007, -11/+5You're close, they have MRSI to work on now. So its ok to get rid of AIDS.
      • katulatakulu, on 10/24/2007, -1/+10Market Research Society of India? Or MRSA?
      • Gabberwok, on 10/23/2007, -0/+1You're wrong on two counts. Katulatakulu got the first one, so I'll add the second: medicare is no longer reimbursing doctors for most MRSA infections, since they are usually acquired in the hospital due to mistakes by doctors and nurses (i.e. not washing hands).
        • Ellipsys, on 10/23/2007, -0/+2I'm going to call BS on that. MRSA infections used to be the domain of hospitals, but not because of lack of cleanliness. Today, do to overuse of prophylactic antibiotics, common bacteria like staph are now resistant to antibiotics. People can pick them up anywhere. Just recently there were outbreaks at schools. If Medicare is not reimbursing doctors for treating these some times high-risk infections, they're wrong
          • Gabberwok, on 10/25/2007, -0/+1MRSA evolved from normal S. Aureus because of over-prescription of antibiotics, but it's still primarily a nosocomial infection in hospitals. It's popping up outside of hospitals now too, but you still have a huge concentration of antibiotics, immuno-compromised individuals, and rapid person-to-person contact inside of hospitals making them the prime breeding ground for MRSA. I'm sure there will be a loophole in the reimbursement plan for individuals who arrive at the hospital infected by MRSA, and I'm sure more hospitals will start to screen for it if they don't get paid for the treatment if they can't prove the infection occurred before treatment at the hospital. Hospitals really need to improve their hygiene practices, because MRSA is only really a problem in hospitals if health care workers don't wash their hands properly... The vast majority of patients are still getting infected by it within the hospital, although you are right that may be changing.
      • toxicshok, on 10/23/2007, -0/+1We did "cure" MRSA, its called Vancomycin.
        • thundros, on 10/23/2007, -0/+3But we now have VRSA, Vancomycin Resistant Staph Aureus, as well as other types of Vancomycin resistant bacteria. The whole point is not to overuse antibiotics (especially in the case of a viral infection, in which case they are useless. One exception: a bacterial infection sets in after the initial viral infection) and, when needed to counter a bacterial infection, to use them for the duration prescribed.
    • m3t00, on 10/26/2007, -6/+33"The only stipulation is that patients begin and continue to follow their course of treatment."
      Read much? Big pharma is all over this.
      • toxicshok, on 10/23/2007, -3/+5Ohhhh... the corporations man, there just so evil man, their raping the earth man.
        Medical cures come out of corporations deal with it.
        • pappycack, on 10/24/2007, -0/+0Yes, but when they have had a treatment for some time and charge an arm and a leg so that people can keep themselves alive, it's a bit ridiculous.
        • rarson, on 10/24/2007, -0/+1pappycack:

          Treatment != cure. And ***** is expensive. That's just the cost of things. Maybe people should be more careful and not get the AIDS in the first place (though I do realize that there are people out there who got it through no fault of their own).
    • CDHarrisUSF, on 10/24/2007, -0/+33It's not cured. It's halted "providing that the combination therapy is maintained".
    • EmoSLWarrior, on 10/24/2007, -7/+20It's not a cure. It's a continual source of revenue for big pharma. In other words, they've "hit the trifecta".
      • Gabberwok, on 10/23/2007, -0/+2There are actually some relatively cheap forms of combination therapy. The problem is that even cheap drugs can be expensive for people who are starving, and without proper education about drug regimens and enough medical access, people get off their regimens and end up with resistant HIV that doesn't respond to their treatments. The only way HIV can ever really be cured is by identifying and killing every cell with an integrated viral genome, something we currently are not able to do, and something we will probably never find a "drug" for...
      • catalysis, on 10/24/2007, -1/+7Damn evil pharma companies, helping people live normal lives with otherwise deadly incurable diseases. You bastards!
        • Cyber_Akuma, on 10/23/2007, -3/+4The problem is they are after drugs that require you to use them for the rest of your life, and preferably keep the disease in your body so it can spread to others.

          People with diabetes need to take insulun for the rest of their life, I doubt they will be workong on a cure.

          People with HIV now need to take this drug cocktail for the rest of their lives, they stop taking it they die, and the virus still remains in their system so its possible to still infect others. THIS is the perfect thing the pharmas are after, they do not want a cure, a cure means its dead and no more money from you, they want you to give them money for the rest of your life or you die.
          • EmoSLWarrior, on 10/24/2007, -3/+1I think this is something that would help big pharma do the "right thing". Intentionally infect the big pharma CEOs and their families with the diseases that need cures worldwide that they are profiting from. Then, publicize the infection so that everyone in the world is aware. Finally, keep track on the progress that they make to curing the disease. If they and their family members perish, then it turns out that they couldn't find a real cure after all. Otherwise, it's a strong incentive to be inventive. Sure it has a bit of that old "drown the witch" approach to it. But we are living in "mad" times.
    • FreakyD, on 10/24/2007, -11/+5Do you wear a tinfoil condom to match your tinfoil hat?
      • Bilabrin, on 10/23/2007, -0/+4Damn, FreakyD buried again!.
        Whay do they pick on you so much FreakyD, why? :(
        • FreakyD, on 10/23/2007, -1/+1When they tease you....they love you. That is how they show their affection.
    • ChzPlz, on 10/24/2007, -1/+39This is an astonishingly expensive cure. "The only stipulation is that patients begin and continue to follow their course of treatment."
      Think $2000 a month, for the rest of your life, just for the drugs.
      • RST1123, on 10/24/2007, -1/+11At least you'll have a life.
      • Bilabrin, on 10/23/2007, -0/+1I think Magic Johnson can afford it. Hey he could play again!
        • AceTracer, on 10/24/2007, -0/+4Magic Johnson doesn't need it, he's one of few people that don't show classic symptoms from HIV.
      • Cyber_Akuma, on 10/24/2007, -1/+9Its a treatment that causes HIV to remain in your body (and possibly infect others) but not kill you unless you stop taking it, they basically hit drug gold, of course its not cheap.
      • SiNN4R, on 10/23/2007, -0/+1I have a friend with HIV and I seriously doubt she could afford this.
      • Kopiok, on 10/24/2007, -0/+0Think of not paying $2000/mo, just for dying.
    • mntbikeracer1, on 10/24/2007, -3/+2Hmmm medicating a patient for a lifetime or for a couple years, I wonder which brings in more money?
    • Bilabrin, on 10/26/2007, -9/+14They'll never release a full cure. Haven't you seen Dave Chapelle?

      Besides, you think the christians are gonna let a virus that hits gays and fornicators die?
      • peestandingup, on 10/25/2007, -0/+6That would be the other black comic, Chris Rock.
      • Bilabrin, on 10/24/2007, -0/+2Must've been both.
      • KUVUNA, on 10/25/2007, -1/+1love your neighbors as you love yourself
    • therightside, on 10/24/2007, -4/+6How do you bonehead conspiracy freak, religion haters make it through the day?
      • airstrike, on 10/24/2007, -5/+4we come to digg and annoy closed-minded religious fanatics like you
        • KillerLettuce, on 10/24/2007, -2/+4Who said he was close minded? And where do you get off assuming you automatically know his religion. For all you know he could be an atheist.
          He's right, Digg is full of conspiracy theorist and close minded atheist that don't accept other beliefs.
        • FatherVic, on 10/24/2007, -0/+1Way to be open-minded and accept my religion there...
    • debonium, on 10/23/2007, -1/+1No, you're thinking about Diabetes.
  • prakash1234, on 10/24/2007, -16/+7Now if we can get these american companies off some patents on these, and let indians develop generic drugs so that african nations can afford it, it will be great. Comeon this is humanity.
    • cmpshotty, on 10/24/2007, -0/+8Right, because creating these types of treatments doesn't actually cost billions upon billions of dollars. The companies that invest all that money do deserve to make a return on their research. That financial incentive prompts them to continue creating more treatments.
      • badmagicnumber, on 10/23/2007, -1/+2Yeah, but it is a bit hard to recoup your investment when the drugs are priced at a point where no one can afford them. The drug companies like to have high price per pill numbers. Instead, you lower the price per pill and deal in volume. You don't make the money back as fast, but people are always going to be ill. That is a reasonable course of action that is a win-win for everyone.
        • carltonsmith, on 10/24/2007, -1/+3If you price a product below its value you will quickly run out of that product. Simple supply and demand. Then people will have to track them down in secondary markets and pay an even higher premium for them. Reasonable is one thing. Realistic is quite another.
  • UtopiaInTheSky, on 10/25/2007, -29/+136Everyone has AIDS. AIDS, AIDS, AIDS, AIDS.
    • vertinox, on 10/24/2007, -14/+3Your grandma has AIDS! AIDS! AIDS! AIDS!
      • dondara, on 10/24/2007, -6/+2The pope has got it and so do you
      • BKturdburger, on 10/24/2007, -3/+4My father AIDS, my sister AIDS.... My uncle and my cousin and her best friend... AIDS AIDS AIDS
        The **** and ********* and the ****** and the ****** AIDS AIDS AIDS
        My Grandma and my dog 'OLD BLUE... AIDS AIDS AIDS
        The pope has got it and so do you... AIDS AIDS AIDS
        come on everybody we got quiltin to do
        We gonna break down these barricades... etc... etc.. etc... Yes too much free time.
        in case anyone is interested what the hell we are talking about...
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piChUkmYjVI
      • Namaha, on 10/24/2007, -1/+2The correct response was "WHOOOOOOSH!"
      • nogChoco, on 10/24/2007, -0/+1hearing aids, walking aids, sex aids, ...
    • madrid, on 10/24/2007, -2/+6Bacon and Aids.
  • mlfoley, on 10/25/2007, -37/+73Well, if we permit this sort of scientific research, then our sons and daughters may never know the fear of engaging in sexual intercourse. Imagine what that might lead to! Promiscuity, "free love," homosexuality, all sorts of perversions!

    We need to arrest these doctors, send them to where will send the cervical cancer doctors - for torture - and put a stop to their research before it causes another decade of sin like the 1970s!
    • Unlgued, on 10/24/2007, -12/+6Hmm... no.
    • RyGiL, on 10/24/2007, -0/+37Sadly, there are probably a good many people out there that actually think this way...
    • objectcode, on 10/25/2007, -3/+23let the sin begin...with your daughter
      • klipseracer, on 10/24/2007, -0/+1Thats ok. I'm not afraid. her name is Lorraine Bobbit.
    • Phipman, on 10/24/2007, -16/+6Oh noes! Science is advancing our society! They must be stopped!

      When you get cancer, you'll realize that curing diseases is good for society. Go obtain some common sense.
      • Divals, on 10/24/2007, -0/+3If you had common sense, you'd realize he was being sarcastic.
        • rarson, on 10/24/2007, -0/+1Common sense isn't really all that common, actually.
    • jeimus, on 10/24/2007, -0/+12"Free love" was in the '60s
      • microchp, on 10/23/2007, -0/+1And didn't stop until the 80's with AIDS. :-D
      • mlfoley, on 10/23/2007, -0/+2Actually, it lasted a while. There's a great book by David Allyn called Make Love, Not War that I recently read on the topic of the sexual revolution. God I wish I was alive during the 70s.
        • p0ss, on 10/23/2007, -0/+1why be alive during the 70's you would just have to go through the 80's and aids all over again. Just hold out for a new a sexual revolution, or better yet, start one.
    • Seannaz453, on 10/25/2007, -0/+15Lol I hope you were being sarcastic, because that was pretty funny.


      Otherwise your just a douche.
    • Easty, on 10/30/2007, -0/+27CAP'N, SHE CANNAE TAKE ANY MORRRE SARCASM!
    • cmpshotty, on 10/23/2007, -0/+5Haha. Reading the responses, I have to say great satire.
    • evillawngnome, on 10/24/2007, -1/+4Again, people have broken sarcasm meters.Well, I thought it was witty. ;-)
      I was going to dig you up, but since the trend is to dig down, i'll just go with the flow.
      • klipseracer, on 10/24/2007, -0/+3Follower....
      • rarson, on 10/24/2007, -0/+1Way to think for yourself...
      • jotajota3, on 11/28/2007, -0/+1Not really...it's just a LOT harder to interpret sarcasm when you reading post versus...hearing the person's voice!
    • jimjoebobbillyb, on 10/24/2007, -11/+2waaaaiiiiitt a minute! your name is Ml FOLEY?????? you wouldn't happen to be any relation to the self-loathing Republican closetcase Senator who was busted soliciting underage boys for gay sex, are you?? cause THAT would be so, so poetically hilarious! The lying, promiscuous "family valiues" Republican ***** who by day vilifies homosexuals, and by night has sex with them is saying "free love is bad" ???!?!???! my GOD, you conservatives are so very ***** in your heads. please, spare us all your psychoses, go seek therapy. most of all, SHUT THE ***** UP and keep your ***** to yourself, let all of us live our lives. we'll be happy to do the same!

      "wide stance Republican"
      roflmao!
      • BigBrother87, on 10/24/2007, -0/+3I thought of Matt Foley when I saw it. You know, the guy that lives in a van down by the river? I miss Farley. Comedy isn't the same without him.
      • mlfoley, on 10/23/2007, -0/+1LOL, God I hope not!
    • sethisastud, on 10/24/2007, -0/+23We had an HIV researcher come in and give a lecture during a class in dental school...a girl in my class actually raised her hand and said something about AIDS being god's punishment for gays, and that the researcher was just spreading the disease by prolonging people with HIV's lives by producing those drugs. The ironic bit is that she stabbed herself with a bloody scaler from a patient with advanced AIDS and a high viral load and needed the medications she was criticizing a few years earlier for PEP.
      • DncrLgz, on 10/24/2007, -0/+7Life is ironic isn't it?
      • rarson, on 10/24/2007, -0/+1That must have been god's punishment for her being a dumb bitch and not educating herself on how to not contract HIV.
    • krakdaddy, on 10/23/2007, -0/+6Oh, see, you have to put the /sarcasm or people won't get it.
    • DeadElephant, on 10/24/2007, -3/+3Hah, your going to be so pissed off when you die and find out theres no God.
      • mlfoley, on 10/23/2007, -0/+2There is, and I tell you, She is *pissed*
        • DeadElephant, on 10/24/2007, -0/+1I'll let you win because fighting with a religious person is like trying to fight with a drunk. No matter how right you are they still see you as wrong.
        • Chupathingy, on 10/24/2007, -2/+1aw man, was was gonna make the same comment about fighting with atheists
        • klipseracer, on 10/24/2007, -0/+1Who said we are atheists?? Talk about making false assumptions.
    • MonkeyZombie, on 10/24/2007, -0/+0Don't forget horse sex too. Who doesn't love the feel of a nice warm horse patootie.
    • rarson, on 10/24/2007, -0/+1All hilarious sarcasm aside, people who can afford this treatment can still give HIV to people who cannot. So it's not like we can just go run and ***** everything. Yet.
  • Nevotraz, on 10/29/2007, -3/+186There's a cure of cancer or HIV every week on Digg, if just 1% of these actually materialized beyond the vaporwear point, we'd be doing pretty good.

    Still waiting....
    • WebWorker, on 10/24/2007, -3/+31Is vaporwear like being clothed in steam?
    • UtilityPole, on 10/23/2007, -4/+1So true. I really think that the scientific community enjoys releasing a "breakthrough" in cancer/AIDS research every few months just to get people's hopes up (or, maybe they just need grant money).
    • Cyber_Akuma, on 10/24/2007, -0/+17HIV Nukem Forever?
    • DiggMasterJ, on 10/24/2007, -0/+6We would be doing "well", but good for you for trying.
    • TypeEE, on 10/24/2007, -0/+2Add Diabetes to the list.
  • SirZRX, on 10/23/2007, -7/+2nice, lets go wild then!!!
    • vertinox, on 10/23/2007, -0/+2There's that herpes and gonareha problem...
  • ToolyMcShedder, on 10/29/2007, -5/+280They cured AIDS again?
    • cmpshotty, on 10/24/2007, -1/+17Maybe this time it's more like Magic Johnson cured and not Eazy-E cured.
    • Cyber_Akuma, on 10/24/2007, -0/+4No, a cure would mean the virus is gone, its still there, it just cannot hurt you anymore.... provided you keep taking the drugs.
      • otac0n, on 10/24/2007, -1/+1Wrong, pal.
        AIDS is a syndrome.
        They cured AIDS, not the HIV virus.
        • rarson, on 10/24/2007, -0/+1It's not a cure if you have to continue treatment for the rest of your life. Try again.
  • DarkDx, on 10/23/2007, -7/+2This is not the same as aids I assume? Is this for real? ALREADY? OMG
    Now we need the cure for aids.
    • julianrod, on 10/23/2007, -0/+3AIDS is just the virus (HIV) affecting the body. If you can control HIV in the body, you can get rid of AIDS. But, you'll still have the virus. Read a little.
  • gsspp5, on 10/26/2007, -7/+44I thought Magic Johnson cured AIDS years ago.
    • rinocom, on 10/24/2007, -1/+21apparently you didn't RTA.... "the component used to neutralize the AIDS virus was, in fact, Magic Johnson's blood"
      • TypeEE, on 10/24/2007, -1/+9And Magic Johnson will star in next episode of Heroes.
    • wibambau, on 10/24/2007, -6/+1No. No. Um.. Chuck Norris -obviously- cured Magic Johnson. Chuck is slowly releasing clues to scientists, he doesn't want a global cure just yet.
  • epilonious, on 10/28/2007, -3/+267Point 1. This doesn't mean the virus is flushed from their body.
    Point 2. This doesn't mean people with HIV won't transmit it to their partner if they don't practice safe sex.
    Point 3. This doesn't mean people taking retrovirals (which act on DNA replication) for 20+ years don't start getting nasty side effects later in life.
    Main point: This controlls HIV-onset AIDS, but does not actually destroy/eradicate HIV.

    Keep at it guys, this is but a small battle in a large war.
    • Wacer, on 10/24/2007, -1/+6They say a person that discovers a vaccine to AIDS will have the power to print money because they will be so important.
      • emjaymj, on 10/24/2007, -6/+3Who says? You? HIV/AIDS has killed about 25 million people to date. Smallpox killed nearly 500 million people in the 20th century alone. It was a disease far more widespread and deadly than AIDS. Yet funnily enough, when Edward Jenner came up with a vaccine so effective that smallpox was completely eradicated from nature, he didn't become very rich at all.
        There is worse ***** happening to people than AIDS. It only gets extra attention because it makes people who want to ***** like animals afraid to take their dicks out of their pants.
      • airstrike, on 10/24/2007, -1/+3i like to ***** like a rabbit. i fail to see what's wrong with lots of sex, specially if you take the necessary precautions as to not get a) the female pregnant b) aids c) any other STD for that matter
      • SuckMyDigg, on 10/24/2007, -1/+1So you're sayin someone at the Federal Reserve will discover the vaccine?
    • Sibre, on 10/23/2007, -0/+0Actually, while it is only a battle in a very large war, it was a rather large battle. It may not be the solution for many out there for whom the virus has already brought on AIDS, but it could still save the lives of countless others who have contracted the virus more recently. It will also give hope to countless others who may not have, but are still affected by this virus.
      • epilonious, on 10/24/2007, -0/+4HIV/AIDS used to be a death sentence.Now, it is more like a trial with a nicer judge.
        A. Some excruciatingly lucky ones who take lots of retrovirals when they first realize they have contracted HIV will eradicate it within their bodies.
        B. More than a substantial amount of people get hooked up to a pill factory and will be able to control HIV... so long as they keep taking their pills and go to the doctor a lot more than anyone should ever have-to. They are susceptible to lots of scary leukemias and other cancers as well because retroviral drugs can affect human cell reproduction... but it's not death.
        C. More than a substantial amount of people cannot afford or find access to the pills, or do not have their HIV respond to the drugs until it is too late, and die an excruciatingly slow death.

        We need to get a lot more of the people in groups B and C into group A. Getting people from group C into group B is cool, but it's still not nearly as good as [B,C]-->A
    • taintedzodiac, on 10/24/2007, -0/+2It does, however, mean that many more people are dependant on a drug company for survival.
    • ninja0, on 10/24/2007, -3/+3know what i don't get? why do they call it "practice" safe sex?
      makes it sound like you're going to hockey practice or something.
      practice makes you sound like you suck at it, and thats why you need it.
      gotta go to practice... see ya..
      • SuckMyDigg, on 10/24/2007, -0/+1No one ever masters sex. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, and sometimes you're too drunk to know the difference.
      • rarson, on 10/24/2007, -0/+1Seeing as how many ***** teenagers wind up pregnant, I'd say yes, they certainly do suck at safe sex. So maybe practice is exactly what they need.
    • ToastyMallows, on 10/23/2007, -0/+1It's a step in the right direction.
    • qbyte, on 10/24/2007, -1/+3And the majority of AIDS cases resulting from unsafe sex gives me no faith that the responsibility level is adequate for them to practice safe sex even after being infected. Let's cure this thing but don't celebrate this as the solution.
  • bjs3171, on 10/24/2007, -4/+13is this something other than the "cocktail" that's been around for, like, the past 10 or so years?
    • KUVUNA, on 10/24/2007, -0/+0That's true, better something than nothing. There is hope to the affected ones
  • MaidenFan2358, on 10/24/2007, -5/+23I worked on one of the Navy's 2 HIV units when I was in. They were doing this 10 years ago. Old, old news.
    • ninja0, on 10/24/2007, -5/+5haha.... navy + HIV unit... yeah i'm sure they need a LOT of those..
      • klipseracer, on 10/24/2007, -0/+1No dude, your talking about the State Pen you just got out of. With your azz bleeding btw.
      • rarson, on 10/24/2007, -0/+1Yeah, sailors love to ***** whores in foreign ports.

        (I'm completely serious, a lot of my shipmates ***** tons of whores in many countries.)
  • mongoloidplease, on 10/23/2007, -12/+2They're still wasting money trying to cure HIV? What a waste of time, cancer dwarfs AIDS. Get to curing lung and skin cancers so I can smoke and sit out in the sun with no sunscreen on guilt-free.
    • octagon71, on 10/24/2007, -2/+6I rather have sex guilt-free then sit in the sun.
    • Sibre, on 10/23/2007, -0/+2You do realize that the same people who are working on treatments for HIV/AIDS are not the same people who are working on cures for various forms of cancer, right? Those suffering from HIV and AIDS are people, too, and deserve a cure just as much as someone with cancer. How can you say trying to save them is a waste of time and money?
      • therightside, on 10/23/2007, -0/+1Uh mostly because its due to the poor choices they made.
  • alfredska, on 10/24/2007, -0/+2I think half of the folks reading this title are thinking "cure". Yes this is old news, cocktails have been slowing HIV's effects in the body for years. This is just another form of slowing HIV's effectiveness. Two big problems still exist: 1) The virus is still prevalent and treatment will be required for the rest of life. 2) The virus is just as easily spread to others.
  • RealHyperX, on 10/27/2007, -67/+7How about this for stopping HIV - gays stop having ass sex! Ooohh can I get some grant money now?
    • MacEnvy, on 10/27/2007, -3/+45No, but I'll block you as a consolation prize.
  • CrazedLeper, on 10/24/2007, -19/+0This project will be stalled into oblivion. The "powers that be" do not want AIDS cured. HIV is not natural and it is no coincidence that it only kills the people hated by the Republican party. Yes, I'm wearing my tin-cap, it keeps the stupidity out. If I'm "crazy" then how did I know you were going to say that?
    • saltinekracka20, on 10/23/2007, -6/+3You sure it's not because all the people running around having promiscuous sex are the Liberals? ...Nah, couldn't be.
      • Acewrap, on 10/25/2007, -1/+4Foley, Craig, Allen... Should I keep going?
        • saltinekracka20, on 10/23/2007, -3/+1Right, because what I really meant was that not a single Republican ever had promiscuous sex, ever. You sir are a jerk.
      • CrazedLeper, on 10/24/2007, -1/+0I'm sure that's not the reason. Ever wonder why England, Canada, et. al. have Prime Ministers and the USA has a president? You should look into that; it's really interesting. Follow the rabbit all the way down the "crazy" hole. It's "crazy" deep.
    • gcnaddict, on 10/23/2007, -0/+6"Yes, I'm wearing my tin-cap, it keeps the stupidity out."

      It keeps the insanity in. Nice try though.
    • diagonalfish, on 10/23/2007, -0/+2Your name, sir, is remarkably apt.
    • Gabberwok, on 10/23/2007, -0/+1I don't know guys.. with a name like "CrazedLeper", he may be on to something...
  • Richie311, on 10/24/2007, -1/+1Google Cache: http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:Ft6ylLWFZlcJ: ...

  • growler1, on 10/25/2007, -4/+53"How about this for stopping HIV - gays stop having ass sex! Ooohh can I get some grant money now?"

    Try people infected from intravenous drug use/needle sharing, heterosexual sex, botched blood transfusions, and non-sexual vector transmission (medical workers).

    But thanks for playing, smart guy.
    • RealHyperX, on 10/24/2007, -20/+4In the U.S. it's mostly a gay issue. Nothing against gays, just that gays dont like safe sex. Educate them (and they can educate us about colors, furniture placement, dressing, etc) and the epidemic goes away.
      • sethisastud, on 10/24/2007, -3/+11You have go to be kidding you ***** jackass. I like my safe sex plenty, and all of my friends do too. Before I'd even consider barebacking with someone we'd need to be in a committed monogamous relationship for 3-6 months. Then, maybe, I'd consider it--until then I'll use a condom. In fact, in most gay bars there are bins of condoms and lube free for the taking.

        Perhaps you should be educated about stereotyping?
        • bud38, on 10/24/2007, -1/+4condoms and lube free at the bar.

          Well Hell, at the straight bars all we get is A DEED TO OUR SPOT IN HEAVEN YOU SINNER... I kid, I'm Atheist
        • techweenie1, on 10/24/2007, -7/+1Seth: Dude 1st off, way too much info...I'd rather not know about your sex life. 2nd I think if people were a bit pickier and a bit more prude, straight or gay, AIDS would not be a problem. From what I've experienced, gay culture is extremely over sexualized...perhaps if people wouldn't be so enticed to have all kinds of sex if the places they went to didn't glorify images of sexual activity to the nth degree...yes we all have the urge but we are human not animals (sorta) and we do have some sort of control over it, even though it does seem more addictive than heroin.
          • joessandwich, on 10/24/2007, -2/+3And yet, if a heterosexual guy mentioned that he practices safe sex for at least 3-6 months until he'd consider not using a condom, you wouldn't bat an eye.
          • techweenie1, on 10/24/2007, -4/+1Thanks for speaking for me *****, I really am not a fan of hearing anyones sex life...but since you obviously think that everyone who doesn't want to hear about a gay mans sex life = homophobe and thus enjoys hearing about someone's heterosexual sex life.
          • joessandwich, on 10/24/2007, -1/+3If you don't want to hear about about anyones sex life, don't look at the comments of an article that is about a primarily SEXUALLY transmitted disease. Since that is how it is usually transmitted, that is what is going to come up in conversation. And unless you respond to every comment that is sexual in nature instead of just ones involving non-explicit homosexual sex, yeah, I'm going to say you're being a bit homophobic. He was responding to a comment about gay people not liking safe sex by saying that he practices it, so perhaps you should stop following these threads if you don't want to hear it.
          • techweenie1, on 10/24/2007, -3/+1He could have just said he practices safe sex not go into detail...what is so hard about that...I'd hold the same standard to a Straight person, but I think your bias against people who say things you don't like is blinding you into casting me as a homophobe, since it's so much easier to demonize people than argue a point.
          • joessandwich, on 10/24/2007, -1/+3I find it remarkable that you think that he went into detail. He did just say he practices safe sex and that he would have to be in a monogamous relationship for several months before he considered otherwise. Are you weirded out that he used the word bareback? Because all it means is "not using a condom". He didn't go into any detail at all about his sexual life!

            You also are saying that I'm demonizing people rather than argue a point, which clearly shows you're not paying attention because I'm the one who is responding to your points with arguments while you responded by calling me an *****! There is nothing in my posts that indicate that I am demonizing you, because I know that the only way to get my point across is to present level-headed arguments, which I have been doing in response to your comments. In the meantime, you accuse me of blindly casting you a homophobe while not actually responding to my arguments, so perhaps you should try practicing what you preach. My goal is not to label you as homophobic, but rather to point out the double standard that is so prevalent in society that most don't notice until they're on the losing side. And like I said, if your ultimate argument is that you don't want to read anything about sex in general, however innocuous, then don't read comments on an article about a sexually transmitted disease.
          • techweenie1, on 10/24/2007, -1/+1Yeah I am weirded out that he used the world bareback... saying unprotected sex is sufficient....I called you an ***** for insinuating that I only don't want to hear about the sex life of gays when in fact I don't want to hear the sex life of straights either....you clearly made an assumption that was untrue therefore you were being an *****. No I never said I didn't want to read anything about sex in general I said I didn't want to hear about a persons sex life in detail..which means going beyond the use of using the words protected and unprotected sex...bareback gives a more graphic connotation.... Your goal? hehe...no you already played judge, jury and executioner you can say a bit homophobic but you might as well say homophobe, since really how can one not be a homophobe but a bit homophobic?
          • rarson, on 10/24/2007, -0/+1Wow, you are totally homophobic.
        • DanaLynn86, on 10/23/2007, -1/+2"if the places they went to didn't glorify images of sexual activity to the nth degree"

          techweenie, what straight bars do you go to that aren't glorifying sexual activity? I've been in gay bars...I really haven't seen anything that stands out as glorifying sex any more than what is considered normal.
          • techweenie1, on 10/24/2007, -1/+1Straight bars that don't show pornography or their TV's...
          • bud38, on 10/24/2007, -0/+1what straight bars do you go to that aren't glorifying sexual activity? I've been in gay bars...I really haven't seen........

            I haven't been to a straight bar that hands out free sex lube and condoms.. That's not "glorifying" sex?
          • rarson, on 10/24/2007, -0/+1I would call handing out condoms "responsible," since you know, people go to bars to hook up... duh. The lube? Well, that's likely good for business, if it's free. It's an incentive to choose the bar, not a glorification of something people are already going there for.
      • gwenlister, on 10/24/2007, -1/+5I have no words for how stupid what you just said is. Talk about needing to be educated....
      • joessandwich, on 10/24/2007, -0/+3You *****... right now in America the fastest growing population with HIV is African-American heterosexual women. Yeah, gay men still are a large population with HIV, but they're not contracting the disease as much as other population groups.


        And your comment about gays not liking safe sex is one of the most idiotic statements. All of the guys I've been with have never even considered not using a condom while my straight friends have had so many STDs because they can't manage to keep one on.
    • Gabberwok, on 10/23/2007, -1/+1That first guy was an idiot, but when a doctor talks about "MSM", he's not talking about the media...
    • CaptainNoPants, on 10/23/2007, -0/+2Guys, RealHyperX is gay, he knows what he's talking about.
    • joessandwich, on 10/24/2007, -0/+6Sadly most people in this country don't realize that it's not just "the gay sex" that spreads HIV
      • rarson, on 10/24/2007, -0/+1I wouldn't say "most," but it's a lot. Probably a majority.
  • Taber38, on 10/24/2007, -7/+1mmm could not verify this with any other articles on the web... buried as inaccurate sorry bro.
  • slashbot, on 10/25/2007, -8/+16Oh I forgot the digg mentality...

    massive HIV drug company CORNSPIRACY!!!11
  • catfish182, on 10/24/2007, -3/+20I like this. THIS IS NEWS!!
    Not ***** like myspace tom's true freaking age.
    This is something i like to hear.
  • RashandCurious, on 10/24/2007, -0/+5The CD4 t cells that this article mentions actually continue harboring replication competent virus even when virus level in the blood drops and the immune system rebounds. Resting CD4 t cells are extremely long lived, aren't affected by combination (HAART) therapy, and begin producing virus almost as soon as you drop off HAART.

    If you're going to mention any kind of a cure, or any sort of eradication, you need a solution that deals with these.
  • DoShurikn, on 10/23/2007, -1/+3Mirror: http://duggmirror.com//health/Researchers_Knocks_O ...
  • GREEDOnvrFIRED, on 10/24/2007, -0/+3"Researchers Knocks Out HIV"
    Headline courtesy of Toki Wartooth.
  • Flatlineskillz, on 10/24/2007, -2/+7Ahh Digg and Slashdot Curing AIDS Weekly since who knows when. I am skeptical of the treatment its no reason not to be responsible. I personally keep a vile of Chuck Norris tears in case of an emergency.
  • DangerStepp, on 10/28/2007, -2/+33Medical article on Digg = everyone is doctor now. I'll see all you kids when you're politicians on the next Ron Paul article.
  • quickricky, on 10/23/2007, -2/+1Magic has had this for years. You can live through anything if Magic made it. Looks like having a house in Virginia doesn't mean your life is finished.
  • pyrotix, on 10/24/2007, -4/+3Does this mean we can reopen the pool?
  • Gabberwok, on 10/24/2007, -0/+6This article says absolutely nothing... It's common knowledge that combination therapy reduces viral loads below detectable levels. It's why Magic is still alive. The problem is that combination therapy is expensive, and that the virus quickly evolves resistance to it if the patient does not follow their regimen correctly. Since combination therapy requires multiple pills taken at regular intervals, it is very easy for someone to screw up the regimen and make it less effective.
    • saltinekracka20, on 10/23/2007, -0/+1"It's common knowledge that combination therapy reduces viral loads below detectable levels."
      Duh, who DOESN'T know that.
      • Gabberwok, on 10/24/2007, -0/+2It's been the case for close to a decade now.
  • spiritflare1, on 10/23/2007, -0/+1there is nothing new in this article - combination therapy (aka antiviral drug cocktails) has been the standard in treatment for the past 10 yrs - this article simply reiterates it.
  • rinocom, on 10/24/2007, -5/+7I heard that Dumbledore can cure AIDS.
  • salinemist, on 10/23/2007, -1/+1http://denbeste.nu/essays/hiv.shtml
  • dunderballer, on 10/23/2007, -0/+5What Gabberwok said above is correct. For sometime we have known that many patients can reduce the HIV levels in their blood to an undetectable level by taking several antiretroviral drugs in combination to prevent the virus from adapting. The problem is the drugs themselves can be very debilitating. Some even choose to discontinue treatment and let the virus take its course just as cancer patients sometimes decide that chemo simply isn't worth it. Also, just because the virus levels are undetectable in blood, that doesn't mean the patients don't have HIV. The virus is still in their organs and tissue but the combination treatment stops the virus from spreading and dramatically curbs falling T-Cell levels which is the action that leads to AIDS. The progress made in the last 20 years has been incredible but the virus is still a significant threat as it has proven its ability to infect over 30% of several countries populations.
  • TrojanGuy, on 10/24/2007, -5/+1'Cause I don't want that AIDS. An A and a D missin' from my ADIDAS.
  • noctu, on 10/23/2007, -0/+2this is nothing new its either be sick with hiv or be sick from the meds and I can speak first hand on this.
  • plizard, on 10/24/2007, -1/+3we already knew this was true. only the rich like magic johnson got this treatment before.
  • mpritc1019, on 10/27/2007, -3/+3Let's stop working on AIDS and work on a truly horrible that is the number 1 killer of young males, Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy.
    Currently people with most forms of cancer have a high survival rate and Duchenne MD has a sruvival rate of ZERO but more money is spent on cancer!
    • CrazedLeper, on 10/24/2007, -3/+1Death is what's killing people. Look into a cure for that.
      • mpritc1019, on 10/24/2007, -0/+3when it comes knocking on your door, good luck with that sense of humor a$$hole.
        • CrazedLeper, on 10/24/2007, -2/+1I wasn't joking. Do your homework. There no unknowable things, only things *you* dont' know.
    • Pilomotor, on 10/24/2007, -0/+2People with most forms of cancer have a high survival rate BECAUSE so much money is thrown at it. Also, saying we should abandon AIDS research altogether is the stupidest thing I've heard all day, and this is Digg.
      • mpritc1019, on 10/23/2007, -0/+1That is my point, let's move the money to something else.
    • mpritc1019, on 10/23/2007, -0/+1This article explains what I was saying (not so much about AIDS but cancer): http://www.parentprojectmd.org/site/PageServer?pag ...
    • obxjdt, on 10/23/2007, -0/+1How'bout we work on both of them.....
  • BrandonMills, on 10/24/2007, -1/+2Digg - bringing you decade old news as 'new'.

    Guys, HAART has been around for quite awhile now. This isn't just not new, but it's anciently old.
  • Kalimotxo, on 10/24/2007, -2/+1This reminds me of a joke Chris Rock made "I can't make it to work today, My AIDS is acting up again"
    • R3yDigg, on 10/26/2007, -0/+1If this is true then that joke, from his wildy popular special "Bring the Pain", reeks of truth, in his lead up to the punch line you gave he said paraphrased 'Scientist now days don't cure anything... why? because there is no money in a cure, theres only money in the come back.. they aren't going to cure AIDS they are going to come up with a way for you to live with it.. cause that's where the moneys at'
  • gossipninja, on 10/24/2007, -0/+5i wonder how effective using a cocktail therapy like this, coupled with blood cycling (think keith richards). Where you give the patient the cocktail, the hiv virus is unable to mutate, grow, and reproduce, then after a small time period, cycle out the patients blood one or 2 pints at a time so that after a handful of these blood cycling procedures they should have little of their original blood and in that most of the not active hiv cells woudl be out. Then it would just be a matter of time, before the ones that are in lymphnodes,organs die or get flushed out. In theory without blood cycling the virus would eventually die and flush out, but this painful and expensive procedure might fast track it. Another theory on this track, what about inducing hypothermia (which has been done for various procedures) and then remove practically all "hiv blood" in one go and within minutes replace it with clean blood, then bring the patient out of the hypothermic state. The hypothermia should stop body activity enough were being without MOST blood might not kill you, but i am not a doctor at all.
    • RNEMESiS42, on 10/23/2007, -0/+1This interesting...I'd like to know how something like this would work.
    • george01, on 10/24/2007, -0/+1Your ideas are interesting, with a few caveats (I am a doctor). Just because you give a patient the cocktail does not mean the virus is unable to mutate, grow, and reproduce. In fact given that the virus actually uses your cell's machinery to insert its own genome into your DNA, for most of the time there is no virus. Also, there is inherent mutation built into human DNA polymerases, which means that your cells actually help the genome of the virus mutate, especially when it is not in viral form. Given that it is already inside your cell's DNA, and we have no way of knowing which cells it's in, there is no way that we could simply 'cycle blood' out. Again, it may not even be in the blood. Who knows in what other cells the virus inserts its own genome? It wouldn't necessarily be a matter of time before the HIV-infected cells that are in lymph nodes or organs die or get flushed out. Are we really ready to remove all of a person's lymph tissue along with any other tissue that could be harboring the virus, even were we able to identify such cells? Remember, the virus never dies. By definition a virus is not alive, and thus can not die. Once you get it, you have it forever.

      Inducing hypothermia would not work either. Again to quickly reiterate, the virus is not a living entity, we have no way of knowing which cells it may be in, and it may not simply be in the blood. Thus, how could you freeze to death a non-living entity? Also, you need your tissues to live, and you have no way of targeting HIV-infected tissues with hypothermia induction. So this process would most likely just make you feel unwell without permanently affecting your viral load. Even if you could target HIV-infected cells, you would most likely be killing off the very cells you need to fight off future infections. It's not HIV that kills you, it's AIDS - read 'acquired immunodeficiency'. You aren't able to fight off future infections. This is why this is such a difficult disease to treat, because you end up needing to kill off the very cells you need for survival.

      The most difficult part of treatment with HIV or cancers or infections is in identifying the differences. We can only aim treatment at something if we can identify and exploit the differences between whatever is foreign in our bodies and our own tissues. Certain infections are easy to treat in that a drug can target a completely different physiology - for example, penicillins work in a way to interrupt cell wall function in bacteria, but don't affect our cells because our cell walls are quite different. Fighting cancer gets more difficult as it gets harder to find and exploit differences between cancer cells, which grow out of our own cells, and other healthy cells. The future of HIV is designing enzymes that recognize HIV DNA sequences and actually go into the bloodstream and tissues and cut out all those sequences inside any cells containing them. The problem being faced is building the library of sequences and in the delivery method of this treatment. I encourage you to read further about these issues and to post any primary research articles if you come across any that contradict anything I have said.
  • tiggergrl2885, on 10/23/2007, -0/+0This is not a cure. After reading the journal article I found that this is just one way of CONTROLLING HIV. It is also only successful if this treatment is taken for long periods of time. Here is some Background on the research:
    "Combination antiretroviral therapy (cART) has been shown to reduce mortality and morbidity in patients with HIV. As viral replication falls, the CD4 count increases, but whether the CD4 count returns to the level seen in HIV-negative people is unknown. We aimed to assess whether the CD4 count for patients with maximum virological suppression (viral load
  • Gaalsien, on 10/23/2007, -0/+2Would you please all shut the ***** up about how the evil pharmaceutical companies intentionally designed this drug to keep people infected with HIV/AIDs for the rest of their lives? Do you have ANY idea how hard it is to cure this virus?

    Jesus Christ, you morons.
    • TypeEE, on 10/23/2007, -0/+1I concur with you. Also, you are treating the subject as if the rest of the world do not exist. There are research and system done else where, you got to race to release it or someone else might earn the money you could have earned.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 112 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.