Joshie Posted July 9, 2005 Share Posted July 9, 2005 This is not a vaccine. And it's considered tacky to link to a post with the source link. Just link to the source, please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sammyinnit Posted July 9, 2005 Share Posted July 9, 2005 (edited) A durable new drug that prevents HIV from entering human cells and causes almost no side effects has been developed by a team of researchers at Kumamoto University. The new drug, code named AK602, was reported by the research team's leader, Hiroaki Mitsuya, at the International Congress on AIDS in Asia and the Pacific in Kobe on Tuesday. The drug's main feature is that it shuts out the AIDS virus at the point when it tries to intrude into a human cell. Read On... Edited July 9, 2005 by fred666 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Elі Subscriber² Posted July 9, 2005 Subscriber² Share Posted July 9, 2005 interesting article, thanks for posting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GhostShell Posted July 9, 2005 Share Posted July 9, 2005 Pretty interesting. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[bear] Posted July 9, 2005 Share Posted July 9, 2005 the virus will still mutate in some way despite what the article says.. it has to adapt to survive and it needs another living cell to do that. It will just find another entrance. It is promising news that they can even get this far though! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshie Posted July 9, 2005 Share Posted July 9, 2005 the virus will still mutate in some way despite what the article says.. it has to adapt to survive and it needs another living cell to do that. It will just find another entrance. It is promising news that they can even get this far though! 586187244[/snapback] Not true. That's the only possible way for the virus to enter a cell. There are no alternatives. The people you read about who are 'immune' to AIDS are people whose genes are slightly different for cell entry than the vast majority of people. It doesn't matter how the virus mutates. However, that doesn't mean the virus will just leave you. It just won't hurt you. You can still, I believe, spread it, ala European settlers unexpectedly unleashing diseases on Native Americans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gian-Pa Posted July 9, 2005 Share Posted July 9, 2005 in italy they found the vaccine but they need to "create it" , but there are money problems :no: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Intersect Posted July 9, 2005 Share Posted July 9, 2005 Not true. That's the only possible way for the virus to enter a cell. There are no alternatives. The people you read about who are 'immune' to AIDS are people whose genes are slightly different for cell entry than the vast majority of people. It doesn't matter how the virus mutates.However, that doesn't mean the virus will just leave you. It just won't hurt you. You can still, I believe, spread it, ala European settlers unexpectedly unleashing diseases on Native Americans. 586187265[/snapback] I remember hearing about the people that are immune to the HIV virus. they have the same genes that some people had when the blackplague came to england. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoHideo Posted July 9, 2005 Share Posted July 9, 2005 How could you still be a carrier for it if the virus is not able to get a host cell and replicate? It should end up just dying if this works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Intersect Posted July 9, 2005 Share Posted July 9, 2005 in italy they found the vaccine but they need to "create it" , but there are money problems :no: 586187284[/snapback] I wounder if Bill gates will help out with the funding for this. ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PureLogic Posted July 9, 2005 Share Posted July 9, 2005 in italy they found the vaccine but they need to "create it" , but there are money problems? :no:: 586187284[/snapback] If they really found a working vaccine, there wouldn't be any money problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshie Posted July 9, 2005 Share Posted July 9, 2005 How could you still be a carrier for it if the virus is not able to get a host cell and replicate? It should end up just dying if this works. 586187308[/snapback] I'm not entirely sure. I have my own questions about it all. There are just a few rules that I am sure of, and I base my assertions on those. I'd love to find out more. Anyway, I remember reading once that a virus isn't something that can 'die' like bacteria can. It's something that has to be attacked and removed from the body. Also, it probably would've attached itself to some cells by the time the drug is administered. This is NOT a vaccine. It's something you have to continuously take. It's treatment. Prolonged use can very much weaken the immune system. A person who finds out he's HIV+ may go on this treatment, and it would prevent any uninfected cells from becoming infected. However, all cells currently infected would stay infected, and any of those cells' children cells (when they split or whatever it is cells do) would also be infected. More drugs are needed for these problems. The drug in this article only solves one part of the disease. There is still a lot of work left. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1WayJonny Posted July 9, 2005 Share Posted July 9, 2005 the virus will still mutate in some way despite what the article says.. it has to adapt to survive and it needs another living cell to do that. It will just find another entrance. It is promising news that they can even get this far though! 586187244[/snapback] Indeed, its called evolution Most nasty virus probally came from stuff we had vaccines now for years and are the upgraded big brother! Survival of the fittest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshie Posted July 9, 2005 Share Posted July 9, 2005 If they really found a working vaccine, there wouldn't be any money problems. 586187313[/snapback] Some people say that drug companies do not like the idea of an HIV vaccine. The current cost of treatment alone is high enough that it spells huge profit, and treatment is an on-going investment. Vaccines are a one time thing. One vaccine per person, one price per person. All the profits from HIV treatment would slowly teeter out as infected cases die off over the years (or are cured, if you're an optimist). But hopefully some costly new breakthrough cancer treatments will pop up to replace lost income. It's a very cynical way of looking at things, but I'm pretty sure anyone who has ever had to take prescription anything would agree that the industry is one of capitalism's worst...eh, illegitimate sons. (does neowin still block that word?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AudioDope Posted July 9, 2005 Share Posted July 9, 2005 From what i know, viruses are only considered living once they pwn teh cell and then elite h4x0r inside of it and then just takeover (similar to what noobs do on dalnet when they takeover a channel) then the cell basically comes under the virus and the virus "run tingz" so then it really spreads and makes duplicates of itself. I didnt read the article but if this stops the virus from entering the cell, you would still hvae the virus, but i guess it would either 'die' or just fade off and u wont really have it, i doubt u can be a carrier, its not in you, your cells are good, well depends how it works (the cell blocking thing) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bawx Posted July 9, 2005 Share Posted July 9, 2005 This is not a vaccine.And it's considered tacky to link to a post with the source link. Just link to the source, please. 586187155[/snapback] Looks like someone has AIDS.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[bear] Posted July 9, 2005 Share Posted July 9, 2005 Not true. That's the only possible way for the virus to enter a cell. There are no alternatives. The people you read about who are 'immune' to AIDS are people whose genes are slightly different for cell entry than the vast majority of people. It doesn't matter how the virus mutates.However, that doesn't mean the virus will just leave you. It just won't hurt you. You can still, I believe, spread it, ala European settlers unexpectedly unleashing diseases on Native Americans. 586187265[/snapback] Hmm interesting :) Kinda creepy that you would be able to spread it still... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[bear] Posted July 9, 2005 Share Posted July 9, 2005 Looks like someone has AIDS.. 586187404[/snapback] thats not really funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustGeorge Posted July 9, 2005 Share Posted July 9, 2005 I'm not entirely sure. I have my own questions about it all. There are just a few rules that I am sure of, and I base my assertions on those. I'd love to find out more.Anyway, I remember reading once that a virus isn't something that can 'die' like bacteria can. It's something that has to be attacked and removed from the body. Also, it probably would've attached itself to some cells by the time the drug is administered. This is NOT a vaccine. It's something you have to continuously take. It's treatment. Prolonged use can very much weaken the immune system. A person who finds out he's HIV+ may go on this treatment, and it would prevent any uninfected cells from becoming infected. However, all cells currently infected would stay infected, and any of those cells' children cells (when they split or whatever it is cells do) would also be infected. More drugs are needed for these problems. The drug in this article only solves one part of the disease. There is still a lot of work left. 586187370[/snapback] Cells die eventually and are replaced. The same fate would apply to infected cells. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meshuggah Posted July 9, 2005 Share Posted July 9, 2005 Cells die eventually and are replaced. The same fate would apply to infected cells. 586187463[/snapback] exactly what i was going to say....cells die all the time and new ones are made Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shetland Posted July 9, 2005 Share Posted July 9, 2005 well if it protects uninfected cells, you would give it to someone with aids then wait 8 years for all the bodys cells to die and remake and then none of the cells would contain the hiv. all the new cells would presumably be vaccinated somehow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
linsook Posted July 9, 2005 Share Posted July 9, 2005 (edited) I'm not entirely sure. I have my own questions about it all. There are just a few rules that I am sure of, and I base my assertions on those. I'd love to find out more.Anyway, I remember reading once that a virus isn't something that can 'die' like bacteria can. It's something that has to be attacked and removed from the body. Also, it probably would've attached itself to some cells by the time the drug is administered. This is NOT a vaccine. It's something you have to continuously take. It's treatment. Prolonged use can very much weaken the immune system. A person who finds out he's HIV+ may go on this treatment, and it would prevent any uninfected cells from becoming infected. However, all cells currently infected would stay infected, and any of those cells' children cells (when they split or whatever it is cells do) would also be infected. More drugs are needed for these problems. The drug in this article only solves one part of the disease. There is still a lot of work left. 586187370[/snapback] thats right, virus's cannot be rid of like bacteria (you all should know this, highschool bio)it can only be contained (not sure of proper terms) by a strong immune system or one that can fight the virus in which case the virus lays dormant in host cells undeteced by the immune system. (the immune system will destroy hosts/virus if active/detected). so, the virus never goes away, and is trasmitable to other people but as long as it is inactive in the person, they are fine. best example, cold sores. it is a virus. can be passed on easily, bodies which can fight it will never show sores but are able to pass on to other people. edit: i just remebered, this is like 6 year old info i learned, maybe things have changed interms of treatment of virus's Edited July 9, 2005 by linsook Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jay420 Posted July 9, 2005 Share Posted July 9, 2005 thats awsome, good article Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phalanx126 Posted July 9, 2005 Share Posted July 9, 2005 exactly what i was going to say....cells die all the time and new ones are made 586187925[/snapback] this concept isn't new and i was under the impression that drugs like this were being developed in the US. i think they're called 'fusion inhibitors' b/c they stop the virus from entering via the CCR5 protein on the outer surface of white blood cells. however, i'm not sure if this is the only protein that the HIV virus can bind to in order to get in the cell (i think there are others...). anyway, the class of drugs that have lowered AIDS mortality rates in the US are called 'protease inhibitors', but they allow the virus into cells and then destroy its ability to replicate (via RNA). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshie Posted July 10, 2005 Share Posted July 10, 2005 Looks like someone has AIDS.. 586187404[/snapback] Er, why? Because I've been interested in learning about this stuff? Aren't you? Or else why did you click on this thread? Do you have AIDS? Aside Yeah, I knew cells died. But I also know cells reproduce. How do the rates compare with each other? Then again, what about fat cells? Health books are always so clear on the fact that fat cells, once you have them, never go away. They can split and multiply and grow (making you fatter), or they can be, er, deflated. At least, that's the metaphor that sticks in my head. If all cells eventually die and are flushed from the system, shouldn't that mean fat cells would also? Are these health books misleading? Edit: Er, not all fat cells. I think um...visceral fat cells...? Something...the ones that we get on our guts and butts. :D Or something. I haven't read up on this stuff in so long. :( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts