Major Discovery In Hiv Research

[Jingthing]

This new research suggests great hope to find a way to prevent future infections. Go scientists!

AIDS researchers find protein that greatly boosts HIV infection

German AIDS researchers have discovered a protein common in semen that boosts the infectious potential of HIV 100,000-fold - a remarkable finding that may show how the virus can spread through sexual contact and also suggests new strategies to stop the epidemic.

If scientists can find a drug or chemical that blocks these infection-promoting proteins, it would go a long way toward development of a microbicide, a vaginal cream or gel that could protect sex partners against AIDS.

What is catching scientists' attention is the 100,000-fold increase. "I was so surprised that I did not believe the numbers," said Dr. Frank Kirchhoff, leader of the University of Ulm laboratory that found the protein. "But we did the experiment multiple times, and the results were always the same."

San Francisco Chronicle

[londonthai]

if the scientist find hard to believe than probably it's not true

[Jingthing]

It's a start, lets see how it develops.

[Dakhar]

the virus can spread through sexual contact

No, really?

[Prakanong]

if the scientist find hard to believe than probably it's not true

Do a google on the GSK researcher who could not beleive the results back in the 80's about AZT and HIV - I posted the link in another thread.

It happens more often than you think - sometimes the other way when something does not work.

Only a fraction of drugs make it to human trials and only a fraction of those that do make it to the market - do you think the scientists who developed them sometimes find it hard to beleive they do not work after spending years focused on it?

[moldy]

I, and many others, have grave doubts concerning the whole HIV/AIDS theory. It just does not add up. I think the example here is just another way of trying to explain the inexplicable. It's inexplicable probably because AIDS science is just plain wrong about heterosexual transmission at least. Even the WHO has recently revised the actual figures down by a third and it won't stop here. The viral explanation of AIDS is wholly unacceptable in my view, the virus hasn't even been isolated in the human body for heaven's sake. Some dissidents devoutly maintain there is no virus whatsoever, while other disbelievers like myself think that it's just one of thousands of obscure viruses that inhabit the human body. It is if you like a looter not the cause of the riot. Now, don't get me wrong there is a terrible syndrome here, and I for one don't want to see anybody in pain regardless of sexual pref. or habit. I just think doctors would be better off treating what's in front of them rather than throwing billions at a useless theory. The drugs incidentally appear to work because they are a mild form of chemotherapy. Aids in my view is a toxic syndrome, caused partly by receiving large amounts of semen, and probably impure drugs too.

[Ijustwannateach]

[Jingthing]

Aids in my view is a toxic syndrome, caused partly by receiving large amounts of semen

And that explains how the males pick it up from the females.

[moldy]

Aids in my view is a toxic syndrome, caused partly by receiving large amounts of semen

And that explains how the males pick it up from the females.

This is what happens with this subject, didn't I write partly and didn't I write drugs are also implicated? There are lots of other toxic issues in our lives too. And anyway female to male transmission is a supposition. Just because a lot of websites and people say it, doesn't make it absolute fact. Even the WHO now recognise they got it wrong.

In the Padian study no female to male transmission occurrred. Look, I don't know for sure, but it seems the scientists don't know either, otherwise there just wouldn't be any controversy.

And let me reiterate, there is obviously a very real syndrome here, and I don't want anyone to suffer from it regardless of what they do or don't do with their bodies. I just think there is a need for reappraisal here.

[lazeeboy]

any new findings could save millions of lives ,and stamp this virus out for ever ...

[Jingthing]

Sorry, but you are pushing crackpot theories. And what is your motivation?

Recently it was proven that circumcising African males greatly reduces their HIV transmission rates.

No female to male transmission indeed.

Edited December 26, 2007 by Jingthing

[moldy]

Sorry, but you are pushing crackpot theories. And what is your motivation?

Recently it was proven that circumcising African males greatly reduces their HIV transmission rates.

No female to male transmission indeed.

Was it? who says so? You see there are so many dubious studies flying around and so much misinformation taken as gospel truth.

My motivation. Well when I see that something clearly does not add up then I feel the need to speak. Also I don't like to see people in pain and honestly think the subject discussion needs to be widened. It's the only area of medical science I take issue to. If I go to a doctor I invariably take his/her advice, and take medicines as needed.

Specific to HIV:

1. There has never been isolation of the HIV virus.

2. Retro viruses are easy to to identify on a gradient measure, as they conform to a specific size, shape and weight. HIV has not been identified in this manner.

3. Retro virus do not kill their cell host.

4. Even at it's supposed most virulent stage, there is no evidence of viremia?????????????

5. Haemophelics could not have acquired it from Factor 8. In it's inchoate form -factor 8 is a dry substance. Scientists state HIV can not live in dry conditions. Thus the factor 8 was just simply impure.

6. The HIV test may register a significant number of false positives as it is non specific, eg. people with malaria antibodies (just about the whole of north Thailand) could register false positive. The HIV test is not a pure test you see. It requires signifiant dilution whereas most viral test use a pure solution.

7. An antibody test confirms that the body has beaten a virus anyway???????

8. There is no evidence in my own life, despite being in a pretty racy scene. And how many times have we heard that?

9. Leading AIDS physicians and prominent scientists are now urging for deep reappraisal, including Duesberg, and Muller, and Lang. There is now a list of over 2000 leading academics calling for such a reappraisal.

10. As stated the WHO has now rejigged it's figures. I believe the estimate went down 30%, which represented much of the hetero population previously thought to be infected. The article specifically stated that it was very much related to the gay population, drug users, and perhaps prostitutes (who frequently use drugs anyway.) This is am assive reduction and doubtless it will go down more.

11. Diagnose in Africa doesn't even need a test to be used. My contention is that most of these poor people are suffering from things like military TB.

I agree there are some marvellous, and this may be the saving as they promise to be a cure all for most ailments. At this stage they are rather toxic though.

I honestly believe a reappraisal is needed. No syndrome has ever had a single viral cause. By concentrating solely on a viral issue, a real effective program that saves lives is being sadly missed.

Hardly crackpot I would have thought.

I would like to post a superb link to a reliable, conventional website, that examines the issue fairly, but I don't know if I am allowed to do this on this forum. That would allow you to refer to a few nobel prize winners as crackpots if you chose to do so.

[Sheryl]

Moldy,

Your post contains quite a few inaccurate statements, to say the least.

1. The HIV virus HAS been isolated, and extennsively studied with regard to its behavior, this is what has enabled the development of the various anti-retroviral drugs which specifically target enzyme reactions required for the HIV virus to replicate.

2. It is not so much a question of retri viruses killing their host cell (altho in some cases they may do so or otherwise hasten its demise). It is a question of the virus altering the cell's genetic makeup in such a way as to interefer with its normal functioning. This is what viruses do: they hijack another cell and change its genetic code so that instead of (or in soem cases, in addition to) doing whjat the cell normally diod, the cell's machinery is turned over to replication of the virus.

3. There is indeed evidence of viremia in perons infected with HIV, it is called the viral load and measurable.

4. There are a number of different HIV tests in use. The rapid test can indeed give some false positives, for which reason it is always followed by more time-consuming and expensive tests to confirm.

5. The presenceo f antibodies -- to anything -- only means that the body has been exposed and launched an antibody response. It does not in any way mean that the virus has been "beaten". This is true for all bacteria, viruses etc. For example, youcan have antiobodies to Hepatitis B and still be either acutely or chronically infecetd with it.

6. You have misttated the actual findings in the "Padian study". The fillowing is a verbatim talk given by the paper's author:

" Heterosexual transmission of HIV

Nancy Padian, PhD

University of California, San Francisco

HIV is unquestionably transmitted through heterosexual intercourse. Indeed, heterosexual intercourse is now responsible for 70-80% of all HIV transmissions worldwide . The current likelihood of male to female infection after a single exposure to HIV is 0.01-0.32%. and the current likelihood of female to male infection after a single exposure is 0.01-0.1%. These estimates are mostly derived from studies in the developed world. However, a man or a woman can become HIV-positive after just one sexual contact. In developing countries, particularly those in sub-Saharan Africa, several factors (co-infection with other sexually transmitted diseases, circumcision practices, poor acceptance of condoms, patterns of sexual partner selection, locally circulating viral subtypes, high viral loads among those who are infected, etc.) can increase the likelihood of heterosexual transmission to 20% or even higher (4). Evidence that specifically documents the heterosexual transmission of HIV comes from studies of HIV-discordant couples (i.e., couples in a stable, monogamous relationship where one partner is infected and the other is not); over time, HIV transmission occurs . Other studies have traced the transmission of HIV through networks of sexual partners (6-9). Additional evidence comes from intervention studies that, for example, promote condom use or encourage reductions in the numbers of sexual partners: the documented success of these interventions is because they prevent the sexual transmission of HIV.

In short, the evidence for the sexual transmission of HIV is well documented, conclusive, and based on the standard, uncontroversial methods and practices of medical science. Individuals who cite the 1997 Padian et al. publication or data from other studies by our research group in an attempt to substantiate the myth that HIV is not transmitted sexually are ill informed, at best. Their misuse of these results is misleading, irresponsible, and potentially injurious to the public. "

That's just for starters.

As to what you are allowed to do in this forum...as Moderator of it I believe people have a right to voice their opinions, even if these are contrary to established medical thought or known science. That's opinions., tho, not opinions falsely presented as scientific fact. If you want to say what you personally believe, or cite your own personal experiences, that's fine. But when you start making authorittative statements, including the inaccurate citation of medical research, you cross a line.

This point will be particulalry enforced when such misrepresentation -- be it honestly misinformed or otehrwise -- presents a potential danger to the welfare of this forum's readers.

[Tywais]

This point will be particulalry enforced when such misrepresentation -- be it honestly misinformed or otehrwise -- presents a potential danger to the welfare of this forum's readers.

Nicely presented Sheryl. Was hoping you would come alone and straighten things out.

[Naam]

Aids in my view is a toxic syndrome, caused partly by receiving large amounts of semen

And that explains how the males pick it up from the females.

there should be a law that makes it mandatory for females to wear condoms when having sex!

[geriatrickid]

moldy,

As Sheryl has responded better than I could even try for, I urge you to please read it and think about it. I'll stick with a couple of easier items;

- WHO numbers are updated on an annual basis and depend upon local health authority reporting integrity. The practice is to inventory and appraise at minimum intervals of 5 and 10 years. There is nothing suspicious in the adjustments. Rather it indicates responsible management of data.

- Those that claim there is no virus are unable to provide a viable alternative mechanism. One of the cornerstones of scientific research is that a hypothesis is tested. The evidence is collected to either support or counter the hypothesis. So far all of the peer reviewed information supports the info Sheryl was patient enough to summarize.

- You emphasize "treatment" and therein lies the weakness of your position. Prevention of HIV infection is more cost effective than treatment. The understanding of HIV transmission allows effective prevention to be undertaken. The proof of the success of this strategy was the Thai education and condom program in the 90's. When that program came in, infection rates plummeted. When the program was neglected, infection rates took off again.

- Where my jaw dropped and I stared at my laptop is when you wrote "Aids in my view is a toxic syndrome, caused partly by receiving large amounts of semen, and probably impure drugs too." Well, if you could provide one study that substantiated this, I'd be willing to consider it. The virus is delivered via ejaculate but the semen in itself is not the infectious agent, hence the prevention emphasis on avoiding bodily fluids. While there is an immunosuppressive affect of semen, the usual delivery method and the amounts of semen produced by your typical male isn't enough to initiate a significant impact for most people.

I give thanks that you at least did not suggest the use of garlic and beet root as one health minister did much to the embarassment of her medical community.

[moldy]

This point will be particulalry enforced when such misrepresentation -- be it honestly misinformed or otehrwise -- presents a potential danger to the welfare of this forum's readers.

Well I certainly don't want to lead anybody in to a false sense of security, and let me reiterate, condom use in Thailand is strictly mandatory. I accept that as I am not a leading scientist I do not have the right to state this as fact as I can not prove it. So I'll leave it at that.