View Full Version : Cure for AIDS?

28th Apr 2013, 14:04
Yesterday's Daily Telegraph: Scientists on brink of HIV cure (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/10022664/Scientists-on-brink-of-HIV-cure.html)

Researchers believe that there will be a breakthrough in finding a cure for HIV “within months”.

Danish scientists are expecting results that will show that “finding a mass-distributable and affordable cure to HIV is possible”. They are conducting clinical trials to test a “novel strategy” in which the HIV virus is stripped from human DNA and destroyed permanently by the immune system. The move would represent a dramatic step forward in the attempt to find a cure for the virus, which causes Aids.

The scientists are currently conducting human trials on their treatment, in the hope of proving that it is effective. It has already been found to work in laboratory tests. The technique involves releasing the HIV virus from “reservoirs” it forms in DNA cells, bringing it to the surface of the cells. Once it comes to the surface, the body’s natural immune system can kill the virus through being boosted by a “vaccine”. In vitro studies — those that use human cells in a laboratory — of the new technique proved so successful that in January, the Danish Research Council awarded the team 12 million Danish kroner (£1.5 million) to pursue their findings in clinical trials with human subjects. These are now under way, and according to Dr Søgaard, the early signs are “promising”.

Dr Ole Søgaard, a senior researcher at the Aarhus University Hospital in Denmark who is part of the research team, said: “I am almost certain that we will be successful in releasing the reservoirs of HIV. The challenge will be getting the patients’ immune system to recognise the virus and destroy it. This depends on the strength and sensitivity of individual immune systems.”

Fifteen patients are currently taking part in the trials, and if they are found to have successfully been cured of HIV, the “cure” will be tested on a wider scale............

28th Apr 2013, 16:40
I hope so.


28th Apr 2013, 16:45
A new threat is on the way already, though - antibiotics are losing their power. Or rather, the ones they're supposed to kill are getting adapted and will survive. :sad:

Milo Minderbinder
28th Apr 2013, 17:08

the annoying thing is that theres a whole branch of antibiotic therapies that have been very much ignored - except in Russia
Phage therapy
Phage therapy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phage_therapy)

the western pharma giants have been very reluctant to take on any research in this direction because it could possibly nullify much of their technical lead.

The Russians have successfully used phages as antibiotics for years - but during commie times lacked the finance to commercialise them, and now "big pharma" tries to crowd them out of the market by denying their credibility

28th Apr 2013, 17:19
Okay good news then.

I was afraid of HIV all my youth, at school we were tought to use condoms, we have seen short movies about aids and sick people many times.
At high school and after I paid attention a lot, worried by this sickness.
I almost never wanted to have a relationship (even with a condom) before a blood test from my partner. We were told HIV touched anybody, and not gay people or drug addict particularly but everybody. So I worried and payed attention. It changed my life in some ways.
20 years later few of my friends died, none from HIV. One died flying a C172, the other one a Suzuki GSRX 750.
None of the girls I have been in touched with or was interested in at high school seem to have HIV today, even less before when they where teenager like me.
That was all [email protected] All the worrying was useless as there were no chance for me to catch HIV, I risked my life everyday more doing whatever thing than dating my classmates. All the brainwashing at school by the teachers and doctors were useless. They only worried me, nothing else.
I almost died 2 times, once in Spain, south, mountains south of Granada, and an other time in Chad, desert, Africa, here is the reality.
Many people died around me incuding relative, friends, and people I knew a bit, NONE FROM HIV.
I don't say thank you to this vain prevention I and my classmate recieved at school. I was watching my potential partners at school like a somebody who could give me death after those years of stupid prevention.

I have an advice for the education system: give the kid a rest, you worry them a lot then they die from something else.
Or maybe that was just my generation: bad time to be a teenager in the 90s.

28th Apr 2013, 17:22
Without the education or propaganda the spread would be much worse and you could have ended up with the disease.

28th Apr 2013, 17:37
A company called Sangamo Biotech in the US is also undertaking similar research, I believe they're already well into phase 2 of their clinical trials.

28th Apr 2013, 18:38
But if 'they' find a cure for AIDS, won't less people die of it and thus there will be a great number of starving people in the world who will die much more slowly and in greater discomfort than they would have from the disease? Aren't starving people more likely to commit crimes in order to feed their children, to steal from places of worship and to engage in cannibalism. Isn't it a little contradictory that Bill Gates donates millions every year to AIDS research while Oxfam continually bleats at the inadequacy of its funding, even today, to feed the macerated of Africa Oxfam having lost sight years ago of the fact that it is no longer a charitable organisation but a political one. Will governments, as in South Africa, cease from growing beetroot, a well proven cure for the illness, and instead pour $$$ (like an expensive restaurant) into the coffers of the drug company? If the legislators won't stoop to feed their own how can they be expected to cure them when they won't even condom them.
And lastly but of course by no means leastly, if there were to be a cheap and effective cure for AIDS available for world wide distribution and use then most assuredly there would eventually be a great leap forward in unprotected sex, rapes and the usual concomitant brutality towards women.

28th Apr 2013, 18:38
Yes probabely.

I see a few post were deleted.

That's better like that, it looks more civilized suddently.

Anyway I am happy a cure is being found.

But humanity sure is afraid of viruses.

It reminds me of where I live (China), they are all in panic because of the new chicken flue, it killed 30 persons in 6 months, while 400 people die everyday on the road and nobody seems to care or be in panic/afraid because of it.
I regularly see people ridding bicycles crossing the road without watching the cars coming but wearing a mask to avoid the flue.
It just doesn't seem logic and rational to me.

28th Apr 2013, 18:46
cavortingcheeta: I was not thinking about Africa when writting my post, but it sure is another deal with HIV over there, it's a real catastrophe.

However I am having a hard time to follow your logic.
Less sickness equals more misery? Is it that simple?

Milo Minderbinder
28th Apr 2013, 18:52
just sell them more guns
then the overpopulation will solve itself

28th Apr 2013, 19:06
Less sickness equates to more survivors and since there isn't enough food harvested (note the use of that word) in Africa to feed the existing population, the premise is that more survivors will mean more starvers. Death, albeit of a different intensity of pain, will attend them unless, of course, the world picks up the feed tab for the three million who dies annually.
One upside though might be that down in this part of the world, albinos and small girls might sleep more soundly at night were a cure to be successfully advertised and subsequently believed.

28th Apr 2013, 19:13
Since we waste half the food produced in the world, I am sure there is something we can do about that to better feed humanity.

DX Wombat
28th Apr 2013, 19:19
A cure would be wonderful. It would mean no repeats of the bery sad experience I had when I bathed, dressed, and strapped into his car seat a newborn, (literally,) baby who was then taken to another hospital to see and be seen by his father who died later that day. He, the father, had AIDS.

blue up
28th Apr 2013, 19:19
I thought that the whole problem with a virus is that it can't be cured, only the symptoms are treatable and then you let the virus die naturally in the body (given time).

Am I incorrect or have they done something different with this treatment?

My sister is a Doctor of Molecular Biology in North Carolina (bugger-all money in UK science) and she did try to explain all this once but sadly I don't have her IQ which was 174 at the last count.

28th Apr 2013, 19:29
Certainly vast amount of food can shipped to starving masses of AIDS survivors anywhere in the world but the energy required to transport millions of tonnes of provender would create an enormous carbon footprint which would upset the Greens mightily, melt the icecaps, flood the cities, rip apart the ozone layer and lead to the rapid destruction of us all. So the question must be asked, is it 'better' to let the poor unfortunate three million a year perish from a dreadful virus or preferable instead to initiate a course of action which will lead to the destruction of us all.

Milo Minderbinder
28th Apr 2013, 19:32
blue up
thats a short question to which there isn't a short answer. What you understand is a gross undersimplification and in many cases not that accurate

best to start here
Antiviral drug - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiviral_drug)

28th Apr 2013, 19:44
There are definitely unintended courses of action when 'we' interfere with nature and it's ways. The cure for AIDS would be wonderful, many lives saved, but I imagine that in Africa there would be misery through starvation as previously stated, in the western world extra deaths due to recommencement of risky sexual practices and hard drug usage and so on. Who's to say what might be the future if this were to be true.


Milo Minderbinder
28th Apr 2013, 19:51
Africa has the potential in terms of land to feed the world
Whether it has the capability or desire given its current political state is another issue.
If Africa were properly run it would be growing excesses of food, not acting as a global drain on resources.
A few hundred years ago there were large areas under cultivation, which have since reverted to bush -partly due to the predations of slavery making working on the land unsafe. Partly due to war. And obviously more recently due to "Africanisation" of the land management.
Islamisation of the north and east have a large part to play as well

28th Apr 2013, 22:05
And lastly but of course by no means leastly, if there were to be a cheap and effective cure for AIDS available for world wide distribution and use then most assuredly there would eventually be a great leap forward in unprotected sex, rapes and the usual concomitant brutality towards women.

What ? :ugh:

Do you seriously think a psychologically deranged "human being" of the sort who would go out and undertake the acts you describe would seriously pay much attention to whether or not there is a cure for AIDS available ?

Afterall those types already hardly pay much attention to the widespread availability of condoms.

29th Apr 2013, 06:48
I think the beetroot was a dig at an SA politician who claimed that medicine wasn't needed, and that beetroot was the cure.

In the same way as the SA president said that he wouldn't catch aids after sleeping with a dodgy female, as he had taken a shower afterwards.

I agree SA is doing little in the way of research, which is a pity when you look at the inventions/research and medical world firsts of their past. South African inventions, and the results of their research touch on most people in the developed world's daily lives.

The story goes that aids was developed by American researchers in the Congo in the 70s, the original research was on chimps, but the virus mutated and spread to humans through blood contamination.

Metro man
29th Apr 2013, 09:52
If it happens, sell your shares in the London Rubber Company and buy shares in pharmaceutical companies selling STD treatments. Once the gloves come off it'll be open season.:E

Expect a massive amount of catching up in the generations that missed the 1960s and were just intime for AIDS, like mine.:(

29th Apr 2013, 10:07
It is believed to have emerged in central Africa in the early 1970's

And guess who imported it to Oz? :rolleyes:

29th Apr 2013, 11:50
Bill Hicks - AIDS (http://youtu.be/JdrcOGoszlE)

29th Apr 2013, 11:57
...My partner and I have buried too many friends over the last 25 years. We stopped counting when it reached 20. All of my partners friends died in the 1980's to 1990's of AIDS. All of them. ... I have many clients still battling and living with it today, after acquiring it in the early 1980's....With respect, AIDS has NEVER been a 'gay' disease.
Conversely, among my circles of friends and acquaintances, none of us have buried friends who succumbed to AIDS or AIDS related illness. I am certainly not inferring that it is a 'gay' disease, but the impact of AIDS in non-third-world countries has been far greater in the gay sector of the community than any other identifiable sector.

29th Apr 2013, 14:44
@Martin: yes you are right; HIV is not a gay' disease. That's not what I wanted to say. My point was more gay (men) people have HIV than heteros (in percent).

If you are not gay, no a drug addict (using needles), and live in the west, you have less chance to die from HIV than from cooking in your kitchen or crossing your street. Not even to mention a cure is about to be found.

KAG the postman.

29th Apr 2013, 15:27
I can't be bothered to respond to you...

Good. Who said I was after a response from you anyway? :hmm:

29th Apr 2013, 16:04
The Department of Misinformation functions perfectly, even when deceased.

Dr Mantobazana Edmie Tshabalala-Msimang, South African Minister of Health from 1999-2008, when she died at Donald Gordon Hospital of complications from a liver transplant, advocated beetroot, lemon juice and garlic as a cure for full blown AIDS.

Manto Tshabalala-Msimang: In her own words ? Constitutionally Speaking (http://constitutionallyspeaking.co.za/manto-tshabalala-msimang-in-her-own-words/)

Other remedies mooted by those who should know better are sex with a young (still a virgin) girl child and perhaps eating ground up bits of albino.

BBC NEWS | Programmes | Correspondent | AIDS: A South African horror story (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/correspondent/2311067.stm)

The albino tribe butchered to feed a gruesome trade in 'magical' body parts | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1215949/The-albino-tribe-butchered-feed-gruesome-trade-magical-body-parts.html)

Funny old place Africa, marvellous really because no matter what levels you allow your imagination to reach, the reality is more astounding. Those who have little experience of the dark continent have no idea whatsoever of how dark this wonderful land mass can actually be.

29th Apr 2013, 17:17
Why do I have the weird feeling you pour water on a drowning man when you speak about Africa?

29th Apr 2013, 18:57
Reaching a metaphoric hand into the swirling pool of my memory, I'm sure I heard about 20 years ago of a method for putting someone suffering from AIDS on a blood-exchange machine that would extract and then heat his/her blood outside the body to a temperature to kill the virus and then cool the red liquid before reinsertion in the patient. Was this a fantasy or did someone - probably unsucessfully - try it ?

(Try not to post pictures of women with big boobs in answer to this question, please, I know the temptation is always there, and I understand it, but just answer the question).

29th Apr 2013, 19:29
You mean this?


30th Apr 2013, 04:12
For those who don't know Manto, here we are, in an aircraft of course :)

Tshabalala Msimang - Leon Schuster - YouTube

(probably lost on most people here though)

Solid Rust Twotter
30th Apr 2013, 06:19
This would be the same alcoholic Minister of Health Manto who broke her first liver then jumped the queue for a transplant, depriving someone more deserving. She then proceeded to destroy the transplanted liver with alcohol as well, until she eventually went tits up.

With any luck, no more virgins (some as young as six months of age) will be raped to attempt to cure the condition, if a pharmacological cure is available.

30th Apr 2013, 06:46
Africa's Indigenously Developed Salvation?
Of course Asia, America and Antipodes could be substituted as could Albion and Armorica and Arabia, where, due to high incidences of decent law enforcement punishment implementation, the death rate might be lower than in more licentious ares of the population.

30th Apr 2013, 06:53
HIV has been isolated in samples from at least back as far as the fifties. Folks need to skip the conspiracy theories and examine the real evidence.

30th Apr 2013, 07:17
Surely, it's HIV occurred as long ago as the late 1950s in isolated individuals?
The HIV virus which causes AIDS was first isolated in 1983.

Source:WHO | About HIV/AIDS (http://www.who.int/hiv/abouthiv/en/)

30th Apr 2013, 15:20
No, it's exactly what I said.... Old samples, taken in the 50's and since stored have been tested in recent years and the pressence of HIV was shown.... Proving that the virus was already present in humans at that time and was not "manufactured" in the 70's or later as some would claim.

30th Apr 2013, 17:14
Who's to argue with the Who?
The conspiracy theory is surely a conspiracy to detract attention from the less savoury habits of certain denizens of the bush to feast upon bushmeat and, from time to time, if rumour be true, engage in a spot of zoophilia without the benefit of the regulatory atmosphere provided by Ilya Ivanovich Ivanov.

30th Apr 2013, 17:49
If you are not gay, no a drug addict (using needles), and live in the west, you have less chance to die from HIV than from cooking in your kitchen or crossing your street.
yeah. Wouldn't help one any if they got it (Mom's womb, blood transfusion, husband out in exotic locations). Knowing it was less chance than crossing the street.
But of course, everybody dies.

1st May 2013, 07:22
Cheetah, I think you are confusing the WHO information and what I said... Yes, the date HIV was first isolated/identified was as the WHO suggested in 83....


At a point in the last few the virus was identified using DNA techniques that did not exist in 1983, in samples that had been taken and stored many years earlier. That of course doesn't change the date the virus was first identified, but it does change the date at which the virus is fist known to have infected a human.

1st May 2013, 07:35
I believe WAC got it.

The near unanimous international consensus is that HIV was first discovered in 1983, by a team of scientists - led by the French virologist Luc Montagnier - at the Pasteur Institute in Paris, France.

A rival claim was also made a group led by Dr Robert Charles Gallo (an American biomedical researcher) which published details of their discover in 1984.

In 1987 - following the intervention of the presidents of France and the United States - the two teams finally agreed to share the credit for the discovery of HIV.

1st May 2013, 07:49
Researchers trace first HIV case to 1959 in the Belgian Congo (http://edition.cnn.com/HEALTH/9802/03/earliest.aids/)

CHICAGO (CNN) -- HIV probably originated in the late 1940s or early 1950s, and showed up in people 10 to 20 years earlier than has previously been estimated, researchers said Tuesday.

Dr. David Ho and colleagues from the Aaron Diamond AIDS Research Center in New York told a conference they traced the very first case of HIV infection to a man living in what was then the Belgian Congo in 1959.

The scientists found HIV in a blood sample taken from the man, who was a member of the Bantu tribe. The HIV in the sample looks like an ancestor of several subtypes of HIV now found around the world, suggesting that HIV "evolved from a single introduction into the African population in a time frame not long before 1959," the researchers said.............

1st May 2013, 08:55
Still the same mistake: confused between identifying a sick person that matches later what we know about the HIV symptoms a posteriori (today) (even "HIV" or "AIDS" as words didn't exist in 1950 and were not associated whith the virus we know today) and identifying the virus itself in 1983.
That's not like somebody (scientist) said in 1950 "Hey! This guy has AIDS HIV!"

An other way to say it: nobody is saying the first person contaminated was in 1983.
It is very possible we will never find the first person contaminated and the date.

We could come back to the Big Bang it wouldn't change the fact the virus was discovered in 1983. But if you really want to come back to the big bang today, then read your own article completely:
Another presentation at the conference on Tuesday gave a hint: Francois Simon and colleagues at the Bichat hospital in Paris and the Pasteur center in Cameroon found a strain of HIV that seemed to be halfway between the human and the ape versions of the virus.


1st May 2013, 11:39
It seems like you ARE missing the point...while it was discovered in 83, evidence has pushed the earliest dates of infection back much earlier, even if it was not recognised at the time... It is that proof of the virus existing in the 50's that destroys the "it was man made in the 70's" crap!

1st May 2013, 12:55
You can go back a lot further than 1959, with genetic and other studies saying that the origin of the virus and it's spread goes back to 1920, with the "split" from some forms of SIV going back as far as the 1850's.

What would have made a huge difference was colonialism and the rise in prostitution alongside that, as there was also high levels of assorted venereal diseases at that time as well. Add in the locals eating "bushmeat", alongside the encroachment of man into areas he previously wouldn't have been in so the contact between man and assorted monkeys/apes increases, and you have the conditions where a virus would mutate to take advantage of a new "host".

Here's some of the blurb, with graphs and pictures to look at if it gets too heavy, for y'all to look at.

PLOS ONE: High GUD Incidence in the Early 20th Century Created a Particularly Permissive Time Window for the Origin and Initial Spread of Epidemic HIV Strains (http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0009936)

Oh, and HIV was observed before the twin discovery by Gallo and Montagnier back in 1981 at the CDC and was named AIDS in 1982 by the CDC. So nobody can claim that HIV/AIDS was "discovered" by either Gallo or Montagnier as it's clear that the CDC had declared that a "new" virus was behind the outbreak of various diseases that attacked certain groups of people who had suddenly had their immune system compromised. All Gallo and Montagnier did was look at what could be causing something that was already known and isolate it, which is why the results of both studies were declared to be of the same virus and were both recategorised as HIV in 1986.

So, especially to KAG, stop trying to play the nationalist card, stop trying to say that somehow one country is better than the other, as the "discovery" of what we now know as HIV was declared and published by scientists in TWO countries at the same time (and you cannot deny that as both studies were published in the same issue of the same magazine, and in 1986 both studies/discoveries were given equal status).