Indian doc develops enzyme that can destroy HIV

[Dion]

Originally Posted by photon

And just because something has an effect that you are looking for (decrease the population) doesn't mean that that thing actually happens "for a reason". That implies that wars and AIDS were created by an external entity for the purpose of reducing the population.

###!

[blankall]

X2

[tanguay'sstillgood]

Originally Posted by Berger_4_

If there was a cure now, no I wouldn't refuse treatment. If I developed a cancerous tumor, I wouldn't refuse treatment. Nobody would. But why continue to try to find cures for every disease imaginable? So our population can slowly starve to death? Our population is growing fast enough as it is, we don't need to save any more lives.

So, just so I'm clear on this, you have decided that the human population size is ideal now? Cool.

You're right though, we really shouldn't research technologies and ideas that will help the human race. I mean, take farming, for example...what a joke. Man, I wish farming never came into existence. Without it, millions of people would have starved to death by now and we wouldn't have population issues. I wish we could all still live in little tribes, running around looking for food, setting up a temporary settlement every once in a while then moving on. I wish we couldn't grow large enough quantities of food to support large cities and allow higher education to be as accessible as it is now. Think about it...if this woman was out looking for her next meal instead of going to school, we wouldn't have this problem of a possible HIV cure and you and I could both have our way.

Now, don't even get me started on that stupid printing press!!

[Berger_4_]

Originally Posted by tanguay'sstillgood

So, just so I'm clear on this, you have decided that the human population size is ideal now? Cool.

You're right though, we really shouldn't research technologies and ideas that will help the human race. I mean, take farming, for example...what a joke. Man, I wish farming never came into existence. Without it, millions of people would have starved to death by now and we wouldn't have population issues. I wish we could all still live in little tribes, running around looking for food, setting up a temporary settlement every once in a while then moving on. I wish we couldn't grow large enough quantities of food to support large cities and allow higher education to be as accessible as it is now. Think about it...if this woman was out looking for her next meal instead of going to school, we wouldn't have this problem of a possible HIV cure and you and I could both have our way.

Now, don't even get me started on that stupid printing press!!

I think the human population might almost be to big right now. We can't seem to figure out a way to feed everybody adequately, so why bother trying to cure diseases? Let's get world hunger figured out first then move on to terminal illnesses

[photon]

Originally Posted by Berger_4_

If there was a cure now, no I wouldn't refuse treatment. If I developed a cancerous tumor, I wouldn't refuse treatment. Nobody would. But why continue to try to find cures for every disease imaginable? So our population can slowly starve to death? Our population is growing fast enough as it is, we don't need to save any more lives.

Doesn't make any sense to me to draw some arbitrary line in the sand and say people with this problem get fixed and live, people with this problem don't and die.

If you need population controls (which I'm not convinced are needed anyway), there are many other ways to do it. Easiest way would be to work on helping developing nations through to more educated and less poverty stricken states (birth rates then go way down).

Plus without further research and understanding we are more vulnerable to something serious.. AIDS that can be transmitted through the air for example or something, either we come up with a way to prevent it or it kills us all off.

PLUS you are asking humanity to act against its very nature.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Berger_4_

I think the human population might almost be to big right now. We can't seem to figure out a way to feed everybody adequately, so why bother trying to cure diseases? Let's get world hunger figured out first then move on to terminal illnesses

The problem isn't how to feed everyone (totally possible), it's the desire to. We as a race don't want to do it.

And it is possible to work on two different problems at the same time.

[Berger_4_]

Originally Posted by photon

Doesn't make any sense to me to draw some arbitrary line in the sand and say people with this problem get fixed and live, people with this problem don't and die.

PLUS you are asking humanity to act against its very nature.

The problem isn't how to feed everyone (totally possible), it's the desire to. We as a race don't want to do it.

I'm just saying we should work on the problems that can be easily rectified. People are dieing of hunger, give them food. Relatively cheap, and easy to administer. AIDS drugs-extremely expensive, hard to distribute...condoms may be an option, but their cultures/gov'ts frown upon it.

And those last two quotes. You say that I'm asking humanity to act against its human nature by letting people die from diseases. Then you turn around and say that as a race, humans just don't want to figure out an effective way to feed everybody, which is one of the easiest diseases to rectify in the world.

So what does people really want to do? Do we need to feel like we're helping Africa or wherever by donating to AIDS research because it's the "popular" sickness right now? Couldn't they help people who are starving just as easily? Why is there such a big movement to wipe out AIDS, yet hunger goes largely ignored?

[Berger_4_]

Originally Posted by photon

And just because something has an effect that you are looking for (decrease the population) doesn't mean that that thing actually happens "for a reason". That implies that wars and AIDS were created by an external entity for the purpose of reducing the population.

I would hope they were created by an unknown entity...preferably God.

[Burninator]

Berger you have the most twisted on this I have ever seen. So all these "incurable" diseases, as you call them, are here for a reason. Which apparently is a plan designed by god. So we should stop developing medicines and possible cures because of this plan. We are not in the dark ages anymore, get a clue. These medical advancements are improving quality of life for countless people.

I don't see why people starving equates to the stopping of the field of medicine. I guess what you are trying to get at with your crazy rambling is that our money and efforts from medicine should instead be focused on feeding people. While I agree that helping starving people is a great thing, but why in the world would you pick the medical research field to sacrifice. You can't be serious. This is the most ridiculous thing I have read on here in a long time. We spend much vaster quantities of money on many frivolous things. But you actually want to stop something that helps people. Why not stop the research on clothes, or TV's or, I don't know, weapons.

we don't need to save any more lives.

So people starving are more important than people who are sick? Who are you too decide who is more important. Oh that's right, YOU'RE NOT.

No one said AIDS or cancer is incurable. Just because we haven't found one, doesn't mean we won't.

Your logic is completely laughable. How you can possibly make sense of your own argument. On the one hand you are saying the world is overpopulated and "incurable" diseases are keeping it in check. But on the other hand you want to save people who are starving and dying from easily treatable diseases, which is a larger percentage than the other group. So your, so called, plan will save more lives for the already overpopulated earth? Or will they die and be kept in check by the "incurable" diseases? Think about what you are saying. Your argument is a cardboard cutout easily pushed over by elementary logic.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Berger_4_

I'm just saying we should work on the problems that can be easily rectified. People are dieing of hunger, give them food. Relatively cheap, and easy to administer. AIDS drugs-extremely expensive, hard to distribute...condoms may be an option, but their cultures/gov'ts frown upon it.

So improve their education so they will accept condoms. And again, it's not a one or the other choice, AIDS research isn't being done to the exclusion of efforts at feeding the world.

And those last two quotes. You say that I'm asking humanity to act against its human nature by letting people die from diseases. Then you turn around and say that as a race, humans just don't want to figure out an effective way to feed everybody, which is one of the easiest diseases to rectify in the world.

We don't because we've developed to care for our near group of people, friends and family. So yes sacrificing something to feed the world does require us to go against our nature, which we obviously don't do well (as shown by the poverty and starvation in the world). However one I think is good while the other evil (standing aside and allowing harm when action could prevent it).

So what does people really want to do? Do we need to feel like we're helping Africa or wherever by donating to AIDS research because it's the "popular" sickness right now? Couldn't they help people who are starving just as easily? Why is there such a big movement to wipe out AIDS, yet hunger goes largely ignored?

Good point, sometimes people contribute to the popular thing at the time, influenced by the media and such. That's just human nature. So because people are attracted to popular causes we should stop all research and let people die to reduce the population?

But I disagree that hunger is largely ignored, governments and individuals give tremendous amounts of resources to try and feed the world.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Berger_4_

I would hope they were created by an unknown entity...preferably God.

Wouldn't it be easier to simply remove the excess population rather than go through the trouble of creating something that kills the just and unjust alike?

[Addick]

Originally Posted by Berger_4_

So our population can slowly starve to death? Our population is growing fast enough as it is, we don't need to save any more lives.

Maybe before you make such controversial statements you should educate yourself on the topic matter. There is more than enough food being produced today to feed everyone on Earth. Anyway, curing HIV is actually a lot simpler than ending World Hunger. It will be a lot easier to get enough awareness about the need to deliver a vaccine to the masses than it would be to change the political agenda on World Hunger.

[Ozy_Flame]

AIDS, far more than cancer, is something that can be controlled with proper education, protection, and awareness of the disease. Because of it's contagious nature, the onus is on governments, lobby groups, and the population in general to become aware of it's deadly potential.

An AIDS drug would be nice, but I'm not holding my breath. I equate it to birth control pills - it may be effective but it can't possibly be fool-proof. Just avoiding contracting AIDS altogether is the best way to fight it.

[Kybosh]

In case anyone wanted to see the most recent refereed article on this science:

Science 29 June 2007:
Vol. 316. no. 5833, pp. 1912 - 1915

I'm not sure if you can read this without a subscription but let's try:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../316/5833/1912

Basically, Science is one of the highest impact journals out there so that's saying something. While this is really cool stuff I just want to reemphasize some stuff I said earlier based on what the authors themselves say in the abstract.

HIV-1 integrates into the host chromosome and persists as a provirus flanked by long terminal repeats (LTRs). To date, treatment regimens primarily target the virus enzymes or virus-cell fusion, but not the integrated provirus. We report here the substrate-linked protein evolution of a tailored recombinase that recognizes an asymmetric sequence within an HIV-1 LTR. This evolved recombinase efficiently excised integrated HIV proviral DNA from the genome of infected cells. Although a long way from use in the clinic, we speculate that this type of technology might be adapted in future antiretroviral therapies, among other possible uses.

Then at the end of the paper they say:

We accept that this approach is unlikely to be of immediate therapeutic use and that considerable obstacles would need to be overcome before an engineered recombinase could be practically used in any clinical setting. The most important, and likely most difficult, among these is that the enzyme would need efficient and safe means of delivery and would have to be able to function without adverse side effects in relevant target cells. Nevertheless, the results we present offer an early proof of principle for this type of approach, which we speculate might form a useful basis for the development of future HIV therapies.

I still applaud these researchers for some great stuff but I just want everyone to realize that this is likely not a magic bullet (at least not yet).

[Dion]

Good article, Kybosh!

[Thunderball]

Not that I'm necessarily defending berger here, but his thoughts do sound a lot like what I believe is called the Gaia Principle.

Essentially, that the Earth is alive and active, and it "defends" itself when its stability is threatened. In this case, controlling the human population by creating a universally lethal disease. People who believe in this principle believe that Bubonic Plague, Influenza, HIV/SIV/AIDS etc. were all created through nature as a way to control the burgeoning human population that threatens the equilibrium of the planet. These people tend to believe also that every time one of these "population control diseases" are cured, another, more severe one pops up later to continue to push for that equilbrium. The fact that HIV/SIV/AIDS is transmitted primarily sexually is pointed to by people who defend this principle and further cite that the disease would wipe itself out if people used contraception, proper controls to insure no blood interaction and essentially, slowed their reproduction.

[MolsonInBothHands]

Originally Posted by Berger_4_

I would hope they were created by an unknown entity...preferably God.

If God is going to break his little rainbow promise to Noah, and take an active role in population control, and has an ideal population in mind, then perhaps he has designed this planet to yield just the right amount of food to support that number. Diseases could be 'Plan B'. Who knows what that crazy deity has up his sleeve.

The Gaia principle is interesting... could that also be interpreted as a mechanism to keep the human race from growing too fast as opposed to keeping us below a red line limit? As our technology to cure diseases gradually evolves, so too will our abilty to harness energy and feed a gradually increasing population. It sure does seem that at the rate the population is growing, that we are on course for something catastrophic to restore equilibrium.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by MolsonInBothHands

The Gaia principle is interesting... could that also be interpreted as a mechanism to keep the human race from growing too fast as opposed to keeping us below a red line limit? As our technology to cure diseases gradually evolves, so too will our abilty to harness energy and feed a gradually increasing population. It sure does seem that at the rate the population is growing, that we are on course for something catastrophic to restore equilibrium.

I agree. I think if the Gaia Principle exists, its purpose is to slow growth to a manageable pace which technology and efficiency best accomodate. Though I would argue there is a red line of sorts, like you said, not so much raw numbers, but a level of negative influence exerted by the numbers in place.

[Berger_4_]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

Not that I'm necessarily defending berger here, but his thoughts do sound a lot like what I believe is called the Gaia Principle.

Essentially, that the Earth is alive and active, and it "defends" itself when its stability is threatened. In this case, controlling the human population by creating a universally lethal disease. People who believe in this principle believe that Bubonic Plague, Influenza, HIV/SIV/AIDS etc. were all created through nature as a way to control the burgeoning human population that threatens the equilibrium of the planet. These people tend to believe also that every time one of these "population control diseases" are cured, another, more severe one pops up later to continue to push for that equilbrium. The fact that HIV/SIV/AIDS is transmitted primarily sexually is pointed to by people who defend this principle and further cite that the disease would wipe itself out if people used contraception, proper controls to insure no blood interaction and essentially, slowed their reproduction.

Yeah, it's the Gaia Principle. The plague was wiped out, so up popped Spanish Influenza. People discovered a way to cure that, and now AIDS is a problem. Eventually some disease is going to pop up that there will be absolutely no cure for. Hell, they're being developed right now in hospitals. Entirely accidental, but it's happening

[photon]

Originally Posted by Berger_4_

Entirely accidental, but it's happening

Well accidental would mean there's no Gaia Principle, because it's an accident.

But it's not accidental, it's evolution at work. Which may or may not fall into the Gaia Principle depending on one's view of it (ranging from somewhat scientific to totally newage wacko).