HIV Really Incurable?

[DerDrache]

On an episode of The Shield, Vic Mackey's character says that the police have enough resources to solve any crime, but it's all a matter of their priorities. Obviously I don't know whether that's 100% true, and it isn't necessarily analogous to viruses and disease. It did get me thinking though...if you consider: 1) all of the money available for scientific research, 2) all of the brilliant scientists in the world, and 3) the fact that pharmaceuticals is a huge business...it seems quite possible that finding a cure is just a matter of priorities.

Now, in regard to #3, I don't really believe that "evil pharmaceutical companies" are containing the cure for HIV/AIDS simply to make money. People with HIV represent a tiny portion of the population, and it's a risk for everyone that likes sex, so purposely keeping the virus alive for minimal profit wouldn't make any sense.

Moving on, if HIV truly became an epidemic such that it was spreading around like a common cold, such that there was a major panic, and such that everyone was at risk, don't you think there would be enough pressure on scientists and pharmaceutical companies that they could figure out an affordable cure? Aren't cures often found by finding natural immunities within the population?

And this leads to the big ethical question: If you had HIV (or any serious, contagious, "incurable" virus), would you consider starting an epidemic in hopes of allowing a cure to be found? I mean, apparently there is an epidemic in parts of Africa, but just as I don't give a shit about dying people on a shitty continent, I doubt that the people who really have the power to fix that care either. If America or Britain or the EU or China started facing an epidemic on the other hand...what do you think?

[Spiphel Rike]

I suspect that curing it is going to be very difficult.

Like some other viruses the particles aren't all in the blood at once, some are inside the target cells doing their thing (copying) and a bunch of others are hiding out somewhere in the body.
You'd have to be able to get all of them to cure it.

Starting an epidemic to try make a cure happen is a foolish gamble. It probably will remain incurable, so all that you'd be doing is getting a whole ton of regular people killed to save a minority who are often not worth saving.

In some countries people who are HIV positive must have the biohazard symbol tattooed onto them, something like that would probably help reduce infection rates, along with more widespread (and cheaper) testing.

[DerDrache]

Originally Posted by Spiphel Rike

I suspect that curing it is going to be very difficult.

Like some other viruses the particles aren't all in the blood at once, some are inside the target cells doing their thing (copying) and a bunch of others are hiding out somewhere in the body.
You'd have to be able to get all of them to cure it.

Starting an epidemic to try make a cure happen is a foolish gamble. It probably will remain incurable, so all that you'd be doing is getting a whole ton of regular people killed to save a minority who are often not worth saving.

In some countries people who are HIV positive must have the biohazard symbol tattooed onto them, something like that would probably help reduce infection rates, along with more widespread (and cheaper) testing.

Saying that they "aren't worth saving" is pretty ridiculous. We aren't just talking about drug addicts or reckless, uber-promiscuous homosexuals. At least 40% of those getting infected nowadays are "normal" heterosexuals, a small minority get it during birth, and some have picked it up accidentally. So, I mean...some of those that have gotten it might be described as pieces of shit, but many others (most?) are basically just unlucky "normal people".

Tattooing people really wouldn't do anything, as people can always find a way to hide such things. Besides, from a practical standpoint, I don't think people would take kindly to being "branded" and ultimately cast aside like that. If the priority was to get rid of HIV...then killing/quarantining the infected minority would make sense (and any such measures should have been done decades ago), but it's certainly not practical. As soon as word got out that HIV patients were being killed (or cast away, or anything of the sort), they would just begin infecting as many people as possible.

In any case, I think most would agree that the smarter solution is to find a cure for it. If I've got a grizzly bear in my yard that occasionally threatens to maul me, I'd rather just kill it than try to keep it locked outside forever.

Moving on...you mentioned the mechanics of the actual virus. Have any viruses similar to it been cured? That would probably be the biggest clue as to whether there's realistically a chance for a cure. I'd also be interested in genetic engineering and such. Maybe they could engineer a version of HIV that that was non-harmful to human DNA but would attack harmful HIV. (I don't know obviously...but my humble guess is that a cure might end up being something like that)

[Mantikore]

well, i think for every idea that we as a forum can come up with, scientists have probably already tried or are trying, from vaccines to flooding the body with a constant supply of white blood cells.

the thing is, most diseases are not "cured" the body gets rid of with the help of our white blood cells. HIV kills these cells, which is what makes them so deadly. it is actually relatively difficult to contract HIV. your white blood cells would kill most of them as they come in. but if the infection dose is large enough, your body gets overwhelmed.

the smallpox virus is an example of a disease that has been successfully defeated by humans, and comparing it to HIV, it is different in several ways, both scientfically and socially

1)smallpox is a lot more contagious, and i think it can spread through air and water. this means that it is harder to control, prompting world governments to work hard getting rid of it.
2)the effects of smallpox are more grotesque. again this makes world governments more aware and willing to stop it.

so because HIV is more controllable and easier to sweep under the rug, you would expect the world not to do as much when there are more pressing issues (economy, etc), but even if HIV was similar to smallpox,

3) it is difficult to see the effects of HIV, therefore, we cannot qurantine people effectively
4)there isnt a proper vaccine that works for HIV (i believe it to be due to rapid mutation), immunisation is difficult. working vaccines for pox type viruses have been known for at least a century before it was eradicated
5)the body, assuming the person doesnt die, will recover from smallpox. this isnt the case for HIV

[Slave of the Beast]

Originally Posted by DerDrache

Now, in regard to #3, I don't really believe that "evil pharmaceutical companies" are containing the cure for HIV/AIDS simply to make money. People with HIV represent a tiny portion of the population, and it's a risk for everyone that likes sex, so purposely keeping the virus alive for minimal profit wouldn't make any sense.

Only 0.6% of the global population may have it (2006 Report on the global AIDS epidemic), but seeing as they're stuck with it I'd put the "tiny portion of the population" comment into context.

And besides, with regard to everyone liking sex, I somehow doubt that the hobbies of directors from companies like GSK include sleeping with crackwhores and South African prostitutes.

Originally Posted by DerDrache

Moving on, if HIV truly became an epidemic such that it was spreading around like a common cold, such that there was a major panic, and such that everyone was at risk, don't you think there would be enough pressure on scientists and pharmaceutical companies that they could figure out an affordable cure? Aren't cures often found by finding natural immunities within the population?

1) You don't "cure" viruses, you vaccinate against them.

2) HIV/AIDS is already officially classed as an epidemic:

"...all of us in the AIDS effort must be willing to back this. I am increasingly convinced that just expanding programmes, doing more, even much more, is not going to stop this epidemic."

- Peter Piot, Executive Director, UNAIDS

I think what you really mean is if HIV possessed the infectivity of the cold virus, which is something quite different. But yes, I think a viable vaccine would be developed a lot faster and the drug treatment for existing suffers rapidly improved.

Originally Posted by DerDrache

I mean, apparently there is an epidemic in parts of Africa, but just as I don't give a shit about dying people on a shitty continent, I doubt that the people who really have the power to fix that care either.

Originally Posted by DerDrache

Saying that they "aren't worth saving" is pretty ridiculous. We aren't just talking about drug addicts or reckless, uber-promiscuous homosexuals. At least 40% of those getting infected nowadays are "normal" heterosexuals, a small minority get it during birth, and some have picked it up accidentally. So, I mean...some of those that have gotten it might be described as pieces of shit, but many others (most?) are basically just unlucky "normal people".

And many of them are Africans, which you, even as a black man, "don't give a shit about".

So much for the brotherhood. Lol.

Originally Posted by DerDrache

Maybe they could engineer a version of HIV that that was non-harmful to human DNA but would attack harmful HIV. (I don't know obviously...but my humble guess is that a cure might end up being something like that)

Sounds like something out of Resident Evil.

Entry inhibitors appear a more likely option.

[Spiphel Rike]

Originally Posted by DerDrache

Saying that they "aren't worth saving" is pretty ridiculous. We aren't just talking about drug addicts or reckless, uber-promiscuous homosexuals. At least 40% of those getting infected nowadays are "normal" heterosexuals, a small minority get it during birth, and some have picked it up accidentally. So, I mean...some of those that have gotten it might be described as pieces of shit, but many others (most?) are basically just unlucky "normal people".

Tattooing people really wouldn't do anything, as people can always find a way to hide such things. Besides, from a practical standpoint, I don't think people would take kindly to being "branded" and ultimately cast aside like that. If the priority was to get rid of HIV...then killing/quarantining the infected minority would make sense (and any such measures should have been done decades ago), but it's certainly not practical. As soon as word got out that HIV patients were being killed (or cast away, or anything of the sort), they would just begin infecting as many people as possible.

In any case, I think most would agree that the smarter solution is to find a cure for it. If I've got a grizzly bear in my yard that occasionally threatens to maul me, I'd rather just kill it than try to keep it locked outside forever.

Moving on...you mentioned the mechanics of the actual virus. Have any viruses similar to it been cured? That would probably be the biggest clue as to whether there's realistically a chance for a cure. I'd also be interested in genetic engineering and such. Maybe they could engineer a version of HIV that that was non-harmful to human DNA but would attack harmful HIV. (I don't know obviously...but my humble guess is that a cure might end up being something like that)

Some are not worth saving. Most infected are in Africa, which is a losing proposition.
It is unfortunate that so many new infections are of regular people, that is for sure.

The tattooing is done in some countries already, and it is placed on the same part of the body every time. No shit the infected ones would aim to wreck as many other lives as they could, that is what people do when things are truly hopeless.

Yeah it'd be great to cure it, the lessons learnt from doing that would help a shitload with other infections as well. It is hard to cure a disease like this, since it often takes ages for any signs of infection to show up. Once someone's twigged that they're infected it's often too late (unless they're one of the few people who get tested regularly).

According to the guy who taught genomics at my university the human organism has old bits of DNA left over from an epidemic millions of years ago. The human genome actually contains the gene for Reverse Transcriptase (the enzyme that allows HIV to copy itself). If you wanted to wait for resistances to develop that would take too long, no one wants to put up with the huge amount of deaths required for that to happen today, not to mention that the resistance to the virus would only apply for a small segment of the population, so a second epidemic could easily surface.

The virus doesn't harm your DNA, it uses your cells (in this case the important ones) to copy itself, and to assemble new structural proteins to store the new copies of its genome. Genetic engineering could provide some new answers, but I'm not sure how that could be done. I'm not really 'in the know' about HIV (in a useful way), so feel free to look up information and correct me if you find anything good.

[Knight of blacknes]

There is medicine in the Western World that keep HIV, HIV and don't let it develop to AIDS. That said, indeed the most ad hoc method of destroying HIV is to quarentine all the infected and preventing them from spreading the decease. Purposeful infection of someone else should then be punishable by death, sentence to be caried out upon discovery.

I'm not really afraid of HIV because I'm not stupid. I'd never fuck a crackwhore, I'm not homosexual and I don't do drugs and I only date girls of good nature. Someone would have to purposfully infect me with a dirty needle or something, which would trigger a world of hurt upon them from me.

[ChickenOfDoom]

Originally Posted by Knight of blacknes

There is medicine in the Western World that keep HIV, HIV and don't let it develop to AIDS. That said, indeed the most ad hoc method of destroying HIV is to quarentine all the infected and preventing them from spreading the decease. Purposeful infection of someone else should then be punishable by death, sentence to be caried out upon discovery.

I'm not really afraid of HIV because I'm not stupid. I'd never fuck a crackwhore, I'm not homosexual and I don't do drugs and I only date girls of good nature. Someone would have to purposfully infect me with a dirty needle or something, which would trigger a world of hurt upon them from me.

That or a botched blood transfusion. Or one of your 'girls of good nature' turned out to have it without knowing.

Even if you are extremely promiscuous it's not an easy disease to contract though, so in the end it really comes down to probabilities, not intelligence. All you can do is reduce your chances to almost nothing.

Really though, purposeful infection would be harder to prosecute than rape. It wouldn't even make a dent in the numbers. The only kind of quarantine that would make any sort of difference would involve forced testing of the entire population, including everyone entering the country, and that's just not constitutional.

Honestly I don't think anyone here including myself knows enough about biology to begin thinking about how a drug to cure HIV would work. The stuff you read about that sort of thing is very much dumbed down, to the point where there is no information widely available that you can make realistic conclusions from (besides just repeating what's been said already).

[Mantikore]

Originally Posted by Knight of blacknes

I'm not really afraid of HIV because I'm not stupid. I'd never fuck a crackwhore, I'm not homosexual and I don't do drugs and I only date girls of good nature. Someone would have to purposfully infect me with a dirty needle or something, which would trigger a world of hurt upon them from me.

accidents can happen, and taking revenge on the dude (if you actually know who it is, and successfully deliver an asswooping) wont reverse the effects

[Knight of blacknes]

Originally Posted by Mantikore

accidents can happen, and taking revenge on the dude (if you actually know who it is, and successfully deliver an asswooping) wont reverse the effects

My very cruel revenge would make me feel better. Knowing that he's gonna be in a world of pain and die anyways I have to make this special. I'm just a guy who likes to take revenge on people. Besides what would you do if it happened to you?