• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Existing AIDS drugs may prevent the disease

Unnamed

Thinker
U
Joined
Jun 4, 2005
Messages
230
Apparently the combination of tenofovir and emtricitabine has shown promise in monkey tests, and now they are extending the tests to humans.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12039614/

Since we talking about the subject, is there a direct refutation to Janine Roberts' papers "HIVGate" and "AIDSgate" anywhere? They defend the claim that HIV does not cause AIDS.
 
Monkeys, cats and cows get AIDS-like disease when infected with immunodeficiency viruses. All of these viruses are retroviruses and have a very similar genome organisation to HIV as well as HIV-2 and HTLV-1 and HTLV-II. All infect T lymphocytes suggesting a commonality. When the virus jumps species there is a zoonotic infection which are usually dramatic in effect since there has been no time for the host to adapt. We don't know for sure how cats and cows got AIDS but I don't think they take poppers.

Although Janine Roberts rejects the data, those with CCR5 mutations do not get infected with HIV and this data fits well with the biology of the virus. The experiment here would be to determine if these people have taken or take poppers and see if they get or have AIDS like disease.

I don't know if that is a direct refutation but it was an interesting read. I find it hard to conclude that AIDS is misdiagnosed TB in Africa and that this same misdiagnosis would occur in other countries where recreational drug use is not so widespread.
 
The news story in our local paper included a line from some right-wing pundit to the effect that an effective AIDS-preventing drug would only lead to more unsafe sex...

There's some logic there, somewhere.
 
Same logic that said it was immoral to vaccinate young girls against HPV to prevent cervical cancer, because if they know they're protected against that then they'll all be running out to have underage, unsafe sex, of course.

Can't you see it?

:hb:

Rolfe.
 
Rolfe said:
Same logic that said it was immoral to vaccinate young girls against HPV to prevent cervical cancer, because if they know they're protected against that then they'll all be running out to have underage, unsafe sex, of course.
Click to expand...
Is that why contraceptives cause pregnancy? :(
 
Do we know of any "human" viruses , (ie ones to which humans have co-evolved a tolerance), which occasionally make the jump to animals, with more lethal effect than in their common hosts?
-ie the reverse process of the HN51 scare scenario?
I'm wondering about the way large mammals have a tendency to go extinct when humans first appear in their environment. (Though I can think of more likely reasons).
 
Reverse zoonoses

Soapy Sam said:
Do we know of any "human" viruses , (ie ones to which humans have co-evolved a tolerance), which occasionally make the jump to animals, with more lethal effect than in their common hosts?
-ie the reverse process of the HN51 scare scenario?
I'm wondering about the way large mammals have a tendency to go extinct when humans first appear in their environment. (Though I can think of more likely reasons).
Click to expand...
I struggled to think of any, maybe the animals are extinct? :p

This link lists 7 reverse zoonoses. I do know that pertussis is lethal in mice and measles is fairly unpleasant in monkeys.
 
I note the link specifically refers to diseases transferred from man to animals and then back to man. It's short, and I suspect this may be because they're concentrating on the "and then back to man" part. It's also mostly bacteria, and as we all know, most bacteria aren't that fussy about what species they infect.

Leaving aside the problems of human viral infections in non-human primates, I'm struggling to think of a single really significant animal disease that can be said to have originated in man, though. MRSA, I suppose, if we can call that significant. It's getting to be a bit of a bind, I have to say.

Rolfe.
 
"Zoonose"- what a nice word.

Thinking how slowly HIV kills, compared with say , Ebola zaire, it's clear the effects of a weakly infectious, slow acting virus on a global population can be far greater, in the long term, than those of a highly infectious, fast killer. (Especially in the absence of rapid transport such as aircraft). The "purpose" of the virus is not to kill of course, merely to reproduce. One which permits its host to breed before (or without) killing him has the potential to maintain a host pool indefinitely, so long as the host offspring do not die before maturity.
HIV AIDS may fail that test, because babies contract the virus in the womb, but a virus which incidentally triggers cancer or other illness in adults would pass.

We've all heard of "my granny" who smoked 90 a day from the age of twelve and died at 103 while hang gliding. Never a hint of lung cancer.

I wonder how many of the 40 year old smokers who die of lung cancer just happened to be carrying a dormant virus which might not have been lethal but for the poor shape their lungs were in to start with?

Heck- maybe aging is a viral effect.
 
Bikewer said:
The news story in our local paper included a line from some right-wing pundit to the effect that an effective AIDS-preventing drug would only lead to more unsafe sex...

There's some logic there, somewhere.
Click to expand...

Well, an effective AIDS treatment, rather than a cure, might well increase the number of people who get AIDS. The more effective the treatment, the greater the degree of spread. Not all people who get AIDS are responsible with their post-diagnosis disclosure. And since they can't get the disease (they already have it) they are less likely to use protection.

Is there logic in that?
 
Rob Lister said:
And since they can't get the disease (they already have it) they are less likely to use protection.
Click to expand...
This is very dangerous thinking. There are several strains of HIV, and being infected with more than one makes the condition incredibly difficult to treat. Also, if the person who infects the sufferer a second time is being treated with retrovirals, the virus may have developed resistance to the drugs the sufferer is taking, further complicating treatment.
 
Ian Osborne said:
This is very dangerous thinking. There are several strains of HIV, and being infected with more than one makes the condition incredibly difficult to treat. Also, if the person who infects the sufferer a second time is being treated with retrovirals, the virus may have developed resistance to the drugs the sufferer is taking, further complicating treatment.
Click to expand...

It may be dangerous thinking, but is it the common thinking? My guess would be yes.
 
Bikewer said:
The news story in our local paper included a line from some right-wing pundit to the effect that an effective AIDS-preventing drug would only lead to more unsafe sex...

There's some logic there, somewhere.
Click to expand...

Don't you see? If HIV doesn't kill people who have sex, then it can't be used as an example of God's judgment against homosexuals and fornicators. And, erm, people who get blood transfusions. The Jehovah's Witnesses were right all along!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom