physorg.com — AIDS researchers said a new drug shows promise for inhibiting the HIV virus in patients new to treatment or those currently taking a drug c**ktail. Clinical studies of the drug, called an integrase inhibitor, showed that, when combined with two existing drugs, it reduced the virus to undetectable levels in nearly 100% of HIV patients
Jan 2, 2007 View in Crawl 4
sephiroth4Jan 3, 2007
This is about as new as my profile name....as are many of these comments and articles as of late.
dantevJan 3, 2007
It doesn't have much defense.HIV attacks an immune cell by first entering the cell, then using its attached proteins to create a copy of its viral RNA in DNA format. This process is highly inaccurate and most of the mutations occur here.The next step is to integrate the viral DNA into the immune cell's DNA, using a protein called integrase. This is obviously what the integrase inhibitor prevents.Without taking control of the host cell's DNA, the virus cannot commandeer the immune cell. It cannot interfere with immune response and it cannot create new viruses to spread its possibly mutated DNA to other cells.The problem is that a lot of already-integrated HIV cells lie dormant until certain transcription factors are in place. These usually occur when the immune cells are actively fighting infection. This means that if you took this drug for 5 years and then stopped, most of the HIV infected cells would be gone and your T cell count would be very high. But, if you got a cut on your inner thigh or something, those immune cells could be activated for the first time in 5 years and start actively reproducing the virus. Thus it is likely you would have to take this drug forever.And of course, there's always the possibility that the HIV has mutated a resistant strain before the treatment occurs. This is a very real possibility since HIV creates something on the order of 10^10 virus particles each day and has a significant mutation rate.However, with other drugs (like ones that inhibit reverse transcription) it could completely cure the symptoms of HIV in patients. Looks very promising.
signal15Jan 3, 2007
While I'd like to think this poster is wrong, there is some strong financial incentive for companies to keep a cure under wraps. I would hope that none of them are that sick and twisted, but we've seen quite a few very shady things that companies have done to humanity over the years. It is not outside the realm of possibility.Then again, if there is competition in this field, then that would pressure companies to release a cure as soon as they find it to beat others to market.The unfortunately thing about HIV/AIDS is that it kills so slowly. I know that sounds terrible, but it's true. It allows carriers to effectively go around and infect many others before they discover they have it. Ebola on the other hand kills very quickly, which is part of the reason we haven't seen widespread outbreaks of it. If the original people who got HIV had symptoms and died very quickly, it would have been possible to quarantine them and prevent it from spreading. One thing I wonder about the treatment in this article is that if it is undetectable, does that mean it cannot still be spread?
chadellJan 3, 2007
Hoping against hope, this is good tidings nonetheless.
defiantgsrJan 3, 2007
Ahhh, those darn prophages are going to be nearly impossible to get at. Now, if we could only find a way to permenantly keep them in the lysogenic cycle. Maybe.
defiantgsrJan 3, 2007
To think of it, it would be a good idea to use a restriction digest that recognizes a sequence on the viral DNA/RNA that effectively suppresses the ability of the virus to enter the lysogenic cycle. But Im guessing the hard part would to actually 1. Find the gene and 2. It might not be a unique sequence and would, unfortunately, target your own DNA. Blah.
bigslackerJan 4, 2007
Damn evil drug companies.
csilla2000Jan 7, 2007
kool
proudathiestJan 15, 2007
The earth is capable of supporting 8 billion humans.We have 6 billion in 2006.Do any of you fools realize that we have to have natural means of population control?Aids is the perfect population control.You cant get it unless you are living in a ignorant society in which case, it weeds out the people who have failed to adapt. Or you are a drug addict or you had unprotected sex, oops YOUR FAULT!If I had my way I would pull 100% of the funding for aids and put it into cancer and other debilitating deseases for wich there is NO prevention unlike aids. You people have just bought right into the celebrity trendiness of aids reaserch and forgot all about the exploding population that is going to cause war, massive famine, a new disease that is airborne and unpreventable unlike aids.There is no invisible man in the sky (god)There is no afterlife when you die.You cant deal with that either.
generatorOct 4, 2007
That's great news for those with HIV or AIDS. Too bad a cure couldn't be found.<a class="user" href="http://www.HIV-Testing.org">http://www.HIV-Testing.org</a> - GET TESTED!<a class="user" href="http://www.HIVforum.com">http://www.HIVforum.com</a> - AIDS FORUMS<a class="user" href="http://www.AIDSchat.org">http://www.AIDSchat.org</a> - HIV CHAT SUPPORT :)