NEWS: One Positive Use of HIV

CULTURE: One Positive Use of HIV

While a new, highly potent strain of HIV has been detected in New York, scientists from the University of California have found another version of HIV that attacks cancer cells.

If only they could find a cancer that attacked HIV, we'd be set.

LMAO

Not at the next cure for cancer... at the post.

holy crap!!!

I cant see how this could go wrong, I mean its not like the virus could mutate or anything right? Im sure it will just stop at the bad cells

why cant we get these hybrid HIV cells to attack other REAL HIV cells? as in, ones without the different coating and all that? i mean really...

at least it's sort of a start... i don't know how a doctor is going to ask a patient to inject HIV to fight cancer, though

hey, at least they're making some kind of progress, don't you think?

just use a dart gun, get em runnin.

lets give up our cancer for aids! ewweww

Any time I hear about testing on lab rats, I immediatly start thinking of 'Flowers for Algernon"

Does anyone else remember that book? or its accompanying movie "Charly"?

Sorry. 7th grade made me do it.

I am skeptical.

It was a short story, not a book.

And yes, I remember.

"I'm gonna beat that darn mouse this time!"

Cancer is the replication of abnormal cells in the body (hence tumors), which is very different than a virus itself... I don't know the answer to this question, but since virusus have one main function: to replicate, based (usualy?) on a single RNA strand of protein, I don't know if you could do this... but I'm not a microbiologist...

by day.

read the whole post.


[Edited on Feb 14, 2005 by sadisticmika]

Having worked in the Oncology field for a few years and the medical profession for almost 10 years...I think there are much better ways of treating a tumor like melanoma. After all...surgery has always been the most effective way of removing tumors and treating them with either radiation or conventional chemotherapy drugs if there is any residual disease left over. Why try to invent a bigger better mousetrap if the good old standard ones work just fine?

People are still dying of cancer ergo the old standard ones may work some of the time but in other cases they don't do shit.
Have you not had a patient die on you yet? I have to say if so your post is rather callous.

i can practicly smell the outcry from the fundamentalists.
"you cant use Gods plague to cure cancer! the christian thing would be to let 'em die in agony. haleluyah!"




[Edited on Feb 14, 2005 by katiebarthedoor]

cancer...aids...cancer...aids...cancer...aids. decisions, decisions, decisions. that's a hell of a choice to have to make.

When life gives you AIDS, make cancerade.

Here's my concern with this...

Some of you may be familiar with why the medical proffesion is tryingto get away from using antibiotics for everything that comes through the front door. It creates more resistant stains of bacteria. Well, when we start mutating viruses and manipulating them to do certain things, we often don't consider what else they can still do as long as they get done what we want done. When they wanted a new polio vaccine back in the 50's and were testing different vaccines, several of them happened to use body parts from chimps as a part of the makeup of the vaccine. Well, nobody really checked thoughly for viruses in these chimps. Unbenounced to the researchers, chimps used to make who knows how many batches of vaccines were infected with SIV (Simion Immunodeficiency Virus). It is thought that this variation of the virus mutated into HIV when it was administered to people. So, research was done before in the past with injecting chimps with HIV to see what the results would be. The chimps initially got sick and then became better with absolutely no trace of the virus at all. So...they are testing on mice with a mutated form of a human virus. Who is to say that the mice aren't clearing this much like the chimps did? What is going to happen when it goes to human trial and they start injecting people with a purposely mutated version of a known virus that has killed so many already? Is it going to mutate again once it finds it's natural host in humans? Is it going to stay dormant or create a more aggresive form of the disease?

because the HIV virus attacks actual cells. A virus is a much, much smaller pathogen, which there is still argument over whether it is considered 'alive' or not. A virus is just a string of RNA that multiplies itself, by feeding on actual cells.

wouldn't the ulimate goal be to try use the concept of the 'impotent' HIV as a vector to target other types of cancer--not just limited to melanoma?

Goddamn....Whew...That's funny

chemo has lots of ill effects that we won't go into here, and while rmeocing a skin-based melanoma is fine, this case was where the melanoma had spread to an organ and could not be removed without compromising the organ's function.

also, since the virus was stripped of its destructive parts, it should be no problem to fight the caner and then the immune system would get rid of it.

however (and also in regard to finding a way to make it go after other HIV virii), it sounds liek a lot of further testing and observation would be required to see if the HIV could mutate and regrow its original outer coating an dbecome the old virus again. HIV seems to be a pretty wily guy, so that possibility would not surprise me.

it just seems ot me that with cander and HIV/AIDS, there will be no easy out, or possibly a cure, because the chemical ways of treating it are still harmful tot he patient and the medicinal ways are being out-evolved, a l the other article posten in the newswire today.

my uncle just died of cancer last month. He had a very agrsive type that spread quickly through his body. I know that he volunteered for experimental treatments at the medical university he used to work at. So I would think that terminal patients would be willing to risk it if this posible treatment shows as much promise as this artical hints at.