newscientist.com— "In a small trial the drug rapidly cleared most HIV from the blood, driving down levels tenfold in a matter of hours”
Jun 8, 2006View in Crawl 4
@ iceperson: Wow, way to be shortsighted. How about this: nature is cyclic and prefers a not-so-revolutionary condition known as homeostatis, something that we are wrecking on a global basis with our habitat destruction and rampant overpopulation. When things like this happen conditions change to keep populations in control. An increase in predators (doesn't apply to us), new and stronger mutations of diseases, and rapid decrease of food supply (again, doesn't always apply to us). We've suffered through the bubonic plague, polio, measles, and a score of other hideous diseases, and each time something more insidious jumps out of the woodwork.So, we keep this up, and eventually instead of dealing with a disease that kills millions a year, we'll find ourselves battling a disease that will be killing millions a month. Or worse. I'm not saying we shouldn't try to deal with HIV, but our successes in the past are only setting up our inevitable destruction. But hey, you keep that great mindset you have, because I'm sure your inability to approach situations holistically will serve you well in the future.
@kolenkaWhat you are desrcibing is a traditional lytic virus. This is the normal path of viruses. HIV is in the class of retroviruses that do indeed enter your genome and continually produce new virions (the virus particle outside the cell). They bud off, as mentioned in the article and do not lyse the cell causing death. This is where the medicine is acting, preventing a good coat from being placed around the RNA inside and leading, I am assuming, to it's degradation before it can infect a new T4 cell.
barrynortonJun 8, 2006
Not unless it makes/attaches similarly this same form of capsid protein.
cp101Jun 8, 2006
Can't wait for this to be covered up by some pharma companies...
cathodeJun 8, 2006
Another day, another lame digg story.
siroccoJun 8, 2006
@ iceperson: Wow, way to be shortsighted. How about this: nature is cyclic and prefers a not-so-revolutionary condition known as homeostatis, something that we are wrecking on a global basis with our habitat destruction and rampant overpopulation. When things like this happen conditions change to keep populations in control. An increase in predators (doesn't apply to us), new and stronger mutations of diseases, and rapid decrease of food supply (again, doesn't always apply to us). We've suffered through the bubonic plague, polio, measles, and a score of other hideous diseases, and each time something more insidious jumps out of the woodwork.So, we keep this up, and eventually instead of dealing with a disease that kills millions a year, we'll find ourselves battling a disease that will be killing millions a month. Or worse. I'm not saying we shouldn't try to deal with HIV, but our successes in the past are only setting up our inevitable destruction. But hey, you keep that great mindset you have, because I'm sure your inability to approach situations holistically will serve you well in the future.
deepsubJun 9, 2006
And why would they find it ironic?
dangerweaselJun 9, 2006
@kolenkaWhat you are desrcibing is a traditional lytic virus. This is the normal path of viruses. HIV is in the class of retroviruses that do indeed enter your genome and continually produce new virions (the virus particle outside the cell). They bud off, as mentioned in the article and do not lyse the cell causing death. This is where the medicine is acting, preventing a good coat from being placed around the RNA inside and leading, I am assuming, to it's degradation before it can infect a new T4 cell.