Possible Cure for HIV Discovered

[Riku3220]

I'm not even going to bother trying to construct an argument against people who regard human life as something which should be thrown away in mass quantities in the name of "population control" (most of which live in countries which massively over-consume yet they have the nerve to say it's a good thing if diseases kill entire generations on other continents, with the justification for their "opinions" being "it saves the planets resources")

 

You honestly can not tell me that if WW2 didn't happen we wouldn't be way over populated.

 

Thanks for proving my point about eugenics-sympathizers. The population "drop" from both world wars was tiny (the baby boom brought it right back above where it was before the war), seriously posts like yours make me feel physically sick to read (and that takes a lot), can't believe some people even going as far as attempting to justify the holocaust.. I suppose it's easy for you to support throwing away human life aslong as it's not in your country though (would you still support "population control" if AIDS was killing millions of americans instead?)

The holocaust was based on a discrepancy between beliefs. AIDS/HIV doesn't care who it kills. It just kills. I don't know why anyone is comparing the two.

 

So you only care about massive loss of HUMAN LIFE if it's indiscriminate?

 

The human species is more important than the human life.

 

Ah, so in your opinion AIDS is only good if it isn't killing your pure [Caution] race?

 

I don't get what you are trying to say because the second to last word is blocked. But what I'm saying is that disease and war help keep our population from going overboared.

[Laura]

I'm not even going to bother trying to construct an argument against people who regard human life as something which should be thrown away in mass quantities in the name of "population control" (most of which live in countries which massively over-consume yet they have the nerve to say it's a good thing if diseases kill entire generations on other continents, with the justification for their "opinions" being "it saves the planets resources")

 

You honestly can not tell me that if WW2 didn't happen we wouldn't be way over populated.

 

Thanks for proving my point about eugenics-sympathizers. The population "drop" from both world wars was tiny (the baby boom brought it right back above where it was before the war), seriously posts like yours make me feel physically sick to read (and that takes a lot), can't believe some people even going as far as attempting to justify the holocaust.. I suppose it's easy for you to support throwing away human life aslong as it's not in your country though (would you still support "population control" if AIDS was killing millions of americans instead?)

The holocaust was based on a discrepancy between beliefs. AIDS/HIV doesn't care who it kills. It just kills. I don't know why anyone is comparing the two.

 

So you only care about massive loss of HUMAN LIFE if it's indiscriminate?

 

The human species is more important than the human life.

 

Ah, so in your opinion AIDS is only good if it isn't killing your pure [Caution] race?

As it is, it seems like you're making a statement regarding his ethnicity? If so, that's a pretty ignorant statement. AIDS is present in all ethnicities.

[Riku3220]

As it is, it seems like you're making a statement regarding his ethnicity? If so, that's a pretty ignorant statement. AIDS is present in all ethnicities.

 

If he was attacking my ethnicity it didn't work. I'm black. :lol:

[Quoi_Tu]

[hide=]

I'm not even going to bother trying to construct an argument against people who regard human life as something which should be thrown away in mass quantities in the name of "population control" (most of which live in countries which massively over-consume yet they have the nerve to say it's a good thing if diseases kill entire generations on other continents, with the justification for their "opinions" being "it saves the planets resources")

 

You honestly can not tell me that if WW2 didn't happen we wouldn't be way over populated.

 

Thanks for proving my point about eugenics-sympathizers. The population "drop" from both world wars was tiny (the baby boom brought it right back above where it was before the war), seriously posts like yours make me feel physically sick to read (and that takes a lot), can't believe some people even going as far as attempting to justify the holocaust.. I suppose it's easy for you to support throwing away human life aslong as it's not in your country though (would you still support "population control" if AIDS was killing millions of americans instead?)

The holocaust was based on a discrepancy between beliefs. AIDS/HIV doesn't care who it kills. It just kills. I don't know why anyone is comparing the two.

 

So you only care about massive loss of HUMAN LIFE if it's indiscriminate?

[/hide]Do you understand what overpopulation does to a species? Why should I value human life as anything more than carbon and water? I'm glad you have high morals for human life, but we can't save everyone, and if we did, we would lose everyone.

 

Just to kind of butt in, if you view human life like that, a crematorium (or it's cheaper equivalent) is more effective, efficient, and cheaper. A lottery system for the lucky many would probably be the most fair.

[killerbeer0]

The human species is more important than the human life.

 

 

 

Neither is important. We are all the result of a molecular fluke and have no more worth than a single measly grain of sand.

[Riku3220]

The human species is more important than the human life.

 

 

 

Neither is important. We are all the result of a molecular fluke and have no more worth than a single measly grain of sand.

 

Not on the scale of all the species but each species is more important the the individual life of that species.

 

 

 

Ants don't care if a single ant dies as long as the entire species flourish. IT's the same with humans, flies, spiders, birds, and fish.

[EdgedThesis]

The human species is more important than the human life.

 

 

 

Neither is important. We are all the result of a molecular fluke and have no more worth than a single measly grain of sand.

 

 

 

Sand cannot analyze, come to conclusions, or philosophize.

 

 

 

Can sand assign purpose to itself? No. It is dead, without knowledge or consciousness.

 

 

 

Though we may be just a fluke, we can transcend our petty molecular origins. This is why we are special. This is why we must be preserved.

[Seraphi]

Basically, humanity needs some kind of population control, or we will all die, not just a few of us.

 

whether it be a deadly disease or euphanasia, that dosn't matter, as long as it keeps our numbers stable.

 

pretty much sums the last few pages of this argument up, right?

[Quoi_Tu]

Basically, humanity needs some kind of population control, or we will all die, not just a few of us.

 

whether it be a deadly disease or euphanasia, that dosn't matter, as long as it keeps our numbers stable.

 

pretty much sums the last few pages of this argument up, right?

 

Sums up one side, yes. The other side being it is cruel to institute such policies or allow people to suffer in the name of population control.

[Wongtong]

This is just my personal opinion, but I think that all the people who are saying that disease is a great population control to stop the world using up all resources are wrong.

 

 

 

AIDS/HIV is mainly active in poor (3rd world) countries, right? They're hardly going to use up all the resources..

 

 

 

As scientists note the arrival of the six billionth human being on the planet, they also are warning that 16 percent of the world's population is consuming some 80 percent of its natural resources.

 

 

 

If disease were to be a good population control, it should be killing off people in richer countries, because we're the ones using up all the resources.

 

 

 

Anyways, it'd be great if there were a cure for HIV, but I doubt the people who are affected (estimated 39.1 million people from 2007) are going to be able to afford this cure, which is quite sad, really.

[i_love_burritos]

The human species is more important than the human life.

 

 

 

Neither is important. We are all the result of a molecular fluke and have no more worth than a single measly grain of sand.

 

 

 

Sand cannot analyze, come to conclusions, or philosophize.

 

 

 

Can sand assign purpose to itself? No. It is dead, without knowledge or consciousness.

 

 

 

Though we may be just a fluke, we can transcend our petty molecular origins. This is why we are special. This is why we must be preserved.

 

 

 

 

 

Damn...must..resist...theological...debates.

 

 

 

What is consciousness ? It is the ability to percieve external stimuli ? To ask questions ? To think ? Or is it simply the question , "why do we think", or even why do "we think to think".

 

 

 

Again none of these questions can be answered to a great detail. However if exaimned scientificly we are all just long chains of Carbon, Hydrogen and Oxygen, with a little Nitroge thrown in. Along with this we have Ionic Salt Compounds, but meh. All we are, asssortment of ordered, structural, functional groups of molecules.

 

 

 

May be, I'm not saying this, ionic compounds in my brain are triggering nerve cells to twitch, and phosphate ions are converting strings of glucose and ATP to form my fingers moving on the keyboard.

 

 

 

To me, humans are essentially a by product of "life". There is a one in 10^40000 chance that we came to be, at all.

 

 

 

In referrence to Laura,

 

 

 

We cannot save, everyone, granted.

 

We cannot feed everyone, granted.

 

We cannot shelter nor provide for everyone. Granted.

 

But lack of making an effort we are degrading ourselves.

 

The act in itself.

 

 

 

As for resource allocation, the problem is that many countries refuse to export vast amounts of grain and legumes, and prefer to hoarde it.

 

 

 

Secondly, most of the world's poverty and malnourishment problems could be sovled if we all became vegetarian.

 

 

 

Again, there is a bit of a paradox here with all you "natural order" of life people.

 

As Wongtong correctly pointed out, that if nature does, automatically try to reestablish natural balance, everysinglegoddamn American would succumb to the worst of the worst, crippling and emaciating disease.

 

 

 

For all you Economists out there Galbraith and Darwin don't mix.

[Laura]

In referrence to Laura,

 

 

 

We cannot save, everyone, granted.

 

We cannot feed everyone, granted.

 

We cannot shelter nor provide for everyone. Granted.

 

But lack of making an effort we are degrading ourselves.

 

The act in itself.

 

 

 

As for resource allocation, the problem is that many countries refuse to export vast amounts of grain and legumes, and prefer to hoarde it.

 

 

 

Secondly, most of the world's poverty and malnourishment problems could be sovled if we all became vegetarian.

 

 

 

Again, there is a bit of a paradox here with all you "natural order" of life people.

 

As Wongtong correctly pointed out, that if nature does, automatically try to reestablish natural balance, everysinglegoddamn American would succumb to the worst of the worst, crippling and emaciating disease.

 

 

 

For all you Economists out there Galbraith and Darwin don't mix.

We aren't degrading ourself, not by any means. Morally, yes, we're obligated to save or at least give effort to save those in less fortunate situations. But if you look back at survival instincts it was just whoever could steal the most food. Why should this be any different? No country is going to sell off its food and resources to another, when a large percentage of its own are starving. We see this as a problem with capitalism, or rather, the limits of it. Other countries are only going to survive off of other countries so long as the commerce never stops. In this case, it's the fight for both your future generation's life, and the species as a whole. And, companies horde resources because it drives the prices up. Again, a conflict with the majority of the world's economic standpoints.

 

 

 

You can't make billions of people become vegetarians. And if you did, even more resource and economic deprivations would arise.

 

AIDS/HIV is mainly active in poor (3rd world) countries, right? They're hardly going to use up all the resources..

It doesn't matter how much the other guys have, it about how much you have. In this case, 3rd world countries have very little, so they can only support a little. But as we see, those countries doubling rates are far to low, yet continue fall lower. It all depends, I guess, if you think that the few should live in luxury, or the large to live in poverty. If you value human morals as much as you say you do (without reference to Wongtong or anyone else), then you should look at the other side of the coin.

[l0l0lpur34]

The fact 16% of the world uses 80% of the resources just highlights the sheer greediness and ignorance which has being displayed on this thread by so many people.

[Quoi_Tu]

 

As for resource allocation, the problem is that many countries refuse to export vast amounts of grain and legumes, and prefer to hoarde it.

 

Which countries? Are we really using 14th century economic policy?

 

 

 

No country is going to sell off its food and resources to another, when a large percentage of its own are starving. We see this as a problem with capitalism, or rather, the limits of it. Other countries are only going to survive off of other countries so long as the commerce never stops. In this case, it's the fight for both your future generation's life, and the species as a whole. And, companies horde resources because it drives the prices up. Again, a conflict with the majority of the world's economic standpoints.

 

The bold is wrong. Just look at many countries in Africa or even regions of Brazil. Voluntary trade benefits both parties, so trade isn't a leech that only benefits one side. Again, who's hording?

 

 

 

It all depends, I guess, if you think that the few should live in luxury, or the large to live in poverty.

 

Or the majority to live in comfort.

[Bauke]

 

Sand cannot analyze, come to conclusions, or philosophize.

 

 

True.

 

 

Can sand assign purpose to itself? No. It is dead, without knowledge or consciousness.

 

 

True.

 

 

Though we may be just a fluke, we can transcend our petty molecular origins. This is why we are special. This is why we must be preserved.

 

Why should we be preserved? That's an opinion. A human view on life. What do we even know? We don't *have* to be preserved at all. Sure, I'd like to live a bit longer, if possible.. but the "need" to is something we humans made up.

[EdgedThesis]

I'm not speaking of a human need to survive.

 

I'm talking about a need to keep our body of knowledge alive. Alive, and growing.

 

 

 

The idea of a Universe, pristine in it's lifelessness, may seem a beautiful thought.

 

But the dread that comes with knowing that such a world would have no one to perceive that beauty completely outweighs the love of such a concept. Paradoxical, I know.

 

 

 

But in regards to it being a simple opinion--yes, it is. I am beaten here.

 

 

 

 

 

But my point is, if we came across another sentient race that we could communicate with, I'd be happy to pass the torch of knowledge, and die.

[BlackDawn]

All i'm hoping for is the chance to put the zombie plan we've created over on the zombie thread into action. Please let this be that chance.

[Zierro]

Why should we be preserved? That's an opinion. A human view on life. What do we even know? We don't *have* to be preserved at all. Sure, I'd like to live a bit longer, if possible.. but the "need" to is something we humans made up.

 

 

 

Technically we don't need to do anything. We don't need to reproduce. Bees don't need to spread pollen or whatever it is they do. Yes, it is an opinion but that doesn't take away it's importance. The way I see it is that humanity should progress as much as possible. I think of life as a game. Try as hard as you can and accomplish all that you can.

[raven_gaurd0]

Rapid mutations won't just target the HIV virus, though. A virus looks like this:

 

 

Now, inside there is but a DNA strand. The drug cannot leech onto the protein coating (the pink) but will instead proceed to go inside and encourage the RNA and enzymes inside to change and clone very rapidly WHEN IT ENTERS A CELL. HIV cannot mutate on it's own; it cannot create more DNA as that defies the law of the conservation of matter (viruses cannot take in any sustenance with which to replicate DNA which, is, at least, something of new matter.)

 

 

 

 

Therefore, when the HIV virus with mutation-encouraging drugs in it enters the cell (ie, the host) the host will do it's function, producing rapidly mutated HIV viruses, but the drugs which are now INSIDE the cell will also serve to mutate the cell.

 

 

 

This wouldn't be a problem, but the drug is now loose, uncontained, inside this infected cell. Well, no big deal, right? The cell will just die?

 

Not exactly. The cell will explode, literally, and the viruses, along with the remnants of the drugs, will escape.

 

Here is a diagram of an animal cell (ie, the ones in you and me)

 

 

 

 

The cell membrane is not a very thick or withstanding structure. It can stop attacks from huge proportional structures without bursting, but it itself, on a molecular level, is more important to retain the shape and structure of the cell. The drug, which is now loose in the cytoplasm of your body, will spread to the outside of the membrane, at which point it will be diffused. (See image below.)

 

 

 

 

With the diffusion, the drug will be released into the cytoplasm of the cell, proceed to the nucleus, and rapidly mutate the enzymes of the RNA, so that when the cell replicates through mitosis, it will be 100% surefire different and mutated.

 

 

 

On the scale that the drug would be attacking, the HIV virus may or may not be mutated into oblivion, but I think that your cells would be badly mutated to the point that HIV isn't your primary concern.

 

 

 

...and it's also how the zombie apocalypse is going to start.

 

 

 

I AM OMEGA MAN!

 

 

 

P.S. I did all this logic on my own, tell me if it's wrong. :wall:

[Barihawk]

[hide=]

at the people saying HIV is a good thing because of "population control": are you [bleep] eugenics scientists or something? sick [bleep], I can't believe you are trying to say such a terrible disease is a good thing, grow the hell up.

 

We need viruses or this world would be flooded. Its not a good thing, but It has benefits.

 

I suppose you think the holocaust was good "because it stopped the world being flooded". i cant believe that there is so many people who think the deaths of millions of peopleare something to say "is a benefit".

 

the holocaust was a war about religion, and they slaughtered millions of people, how could that be a good thing? But disease is good in the sense that it stops the world from being more overpopulated than it already is, and without diseases, we'd live much longer, produce more offspring, and end up killing ourselves out of starvation, because we wouldn't be able to produce enough food to feed ourselves. There would also be huge amounts of pollution, and that could affect the water, and make it undrinkable, thus killing lots and lots more people. So in the long run disease is a good thing. your just looking at it through a very narrow point of view.

[/hide]

 

 

 

Exactly. Remember what Barihawk said back in the homosexuality thread, you need to toss aside your opinion and look at the full picture, even outside the box on situations.

 

 

 

Uh, I don't know if I'd want my name to be attached to that particular scribe of thought. I do think people should be willing to put their own opinions and beliefs aside to look outside the box, but that's reaching really really far out of the box. The Holocaust was a bad thing, period. There's a reason several entire divisions of German troops went psycho and turned on the SS when they found out about these camps.

[raven_gaurd0]

Errr....yeah guys, I'd do away with HIV and AIDS in a heartbeat. It has it ups, yes, but it's downs are INFINITELY worse. INFINITELY A BUGILLION TIMES WORSE. Now that is looking outside the box.

[i_love_burritos]

You can't make billions of people become vegetarians. And if you did, even more resource and economic deprivations would arise.

 

 

 

I plead you to expand.

[i_love_burritos]

Raven guard, did you copy-paste that? Or do you have a biology background ?

 

 

 

Anyway, what method have scientist devised to get past the Phosopho-lipid bilayer ?

[warri0r45]

[hide=]

Rapid mutations won't just target the HIV virus, though. A virus looks like this:

 

 

Now, inside there is but a DNA strand. The drug cannot leech onto the protein coating (the pink) but will instead proceed to go inside and encourage the RNA and enzymes inside to change and clone very rapidly WHEN IT ENTERS A CELL. HIV cannot mutate on it's own; it cannot create more DNA as that defies the law of the conservation of matter (viruses cannot take in any sustenance with which to replicate DNA which, is, at least, something of new matter.)

 

 

 

 

Therefore, when the HIV virus with mutation-encouraging drugs in it enters the cell (ie, the host) the host will do it's function, producing rapidly mutated HIV viruses, but the drugs which are now INSIDE the cell will also serve to mutate the cell.

 

 

 

This wouldn't be a problem, but the drug is now loose, uncontained, inside this infected cell. Well, no big deal, right? The cell will just die?

 

Not exactly. The cell will explode, literally, and the viruses, along with the remnants of the drugs, will escape.

 

Here is a diagram of an animal cell (ie, the ones in you and me)

 

 

 

 

The cell membrane is not a very thick or withstanding structure. It can stop attacks from huge proportional structures without bursting, but it itself, on a molecular level, is more important to retain the shape and structure of the cell. The drug, which is now loose in the cytoplasm of your body, will spread to the outside of the membrane, at which point it will be diffused. (See image below.)

 

 

 

 

With the diffusion, the drug will be released into the cytoplasm of the cell, proceed to the nucleus, and rapidly mutate the enzymes of the RNA, so that when the cell replicates through mitosis, it will be 100% surefire different and mutated.

 

 

 

On the scale that the drug would be attacking, the HIV virus may or may not be mutated into oblivion, but I think that your cells would be badly mutated to the point that HIV isn't your primary concern.

 

 

 

...and it's also how the zombie apocalypse is going to start.

 

 

 

I AM OMEGA MAN!

 

 

 

P.S. I did all this logic on my own, tell me if it's wrong. :wall:

[/hide]

 

 

 

While I applaud the effort you put into your post, I think there's one fatal flaw. It's not like these researchers wouldn't realise that our DNA could be affected, so I think they would have gone for a different route of action.

 

 

 

The drug probably targets reverse transcriptase, which is only used to transcribe viral RNA into DNA. It's not used for any vital eukaryotic biological function, so tampering with it shouldn't hurt us. Just as a matter of interest, the reason why retroviruses like HIV mutate so much in the first place is because reverse transcriptase is a pretty error-prone enzyme.

 

 

 

I'll do some research and report back later.

 

 

 

Edit: From what I can tell, KP-1461 is a special kind of nucleotide/nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor, except it induces extra mutations and doesn't terminate replication. These kind of drugs work as analogs to proper nucleotides and serve to prevent proper replication via reverse transcriptase. This paper suggests that it doesn't get used by nuclear polymerases and passed toxicology/genotoxicity tests which would suggest it takes advantage of a unique affinity for reverse transcriptase.

 

 

 

Here's the mechanism of action as the company explains it:

Mechanism of Action -- VDA

 

Introducing Random Mutations to Target HIV Virus Destruction

 

The VDA approach was developed to take advantage of the natural highly error-prone viral reverse transcriptase. Koronis' scientific founders hypothesized that by presenting HIV with an error-inducing nucleoside triphosphate substrate, the viral genome mutation rate could be pushed beyond the allowable range of diversity thus extinguishing the population (Lethal mutagenesis of HIV with mutagenic nucleoside analogs. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 1999; 96:1492-1497).

 

 

 

The VDA approach has been demonstrated in cell culture using a nucleoside analog that normally base pairs with guanine but also frequently base pairs with adenine. This non-complementary base-pairing increased G to A and A to G mutations and ultimately, over the course of several viral replication cycles, resulted in viral ablation.

 

[l0l0lpur34]

Rapid mutations won't just target the HIV virus, though. A virus looks like this:

 

 

Now, inside there is but a DNA strand. The drug cannot leech onto the protein coating (the pink) but will instead proceed to go inside and encourage the RNA and enzymes inside to change and clone very rapidly WHEN IT ENTERS A CELL. HIV cannot mutate on it's own; it cannot create more DNA as that defies the law of the conservation of matter (viruses cannot take in any sustenance with which to replicate DNA which, is, at least, something of new matter.)

 

 

 

 

Therefore, when the HIV virus with mutation-encouraging drugs in it enters the cell (ie, the host) the host will do it's function, producing rapidly mutated HIV viruses, but the drugs which are now INSIDE the cell will also serve to mutate the cell.

 

 

 

This wouldn't be a problem, but the drug is now loose, uncontained, inside this infected cell. Well, no big deal, right? The cell will just die?

 

Not exactly. The cell will explode, literally, and the viruses, along with the remnants of the drugs, will escape.

 

Here is a diagram of an animal cell (ie, the ones in you and me)

 

 

 

 

The cell membrane is not a very thick or withstanding structure. It can stop attacks from huge proportional structures without bursting, but it itself, on a molecular level, is more important to retain the shape and structure of the cell. The drug, which is now loose in the cytoplasm of your body, will spread to the outside of the membrane, at which point it will be diffused. (See image below.)

 

 

 

 

With the diffusion, the drug will be released into the cytoplasm of the cell, proceed to the nucleus, and rapidly mutate the enzymes of the RNA, so that when the cell replicates through mitosis, it will be 100% surefire different and mutated.

 

 

 

On the scale that the drug would be attacking, the HIV virus may or may not be mutated into oblivion, but I think that your cells would be badly mutated to the point that HIV isn't your primary concern.

 

 

 

...and it's also how the zombie apocalypse is going to start.

 

 

 

I AM OMEGA MAN!

 

 

 

P.S. I did all this logic on my own, tell me if it's wrong. :wall:

 

I think the researchers know more about this than some teenager on an internet forum :P