Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Researchers Crack Major HIV Mystery

Soulskill posted about 7 months ago | from the it-was-the-pathogen-with-the-candlestick-in-the-cell-membrane dept.

Medicine 84

mrspoonsi sends this news from Scientific American: "The difference between HIV infection and full-blown AIDS is, in large part, the massive die-off of the immune system's CD4 T-cells. But researchers have only observed the virus killing a small portion of those cells, leading to a longstanding question: What makes the other cells disappear? New research shows that the body is killing its own cells in a little-known process. What's more, an existing, safe drug could interrupt that self-destruction, thereby offering a way to treat AIDS. The destructive process has caught scientists by surprise. 'We thought HIV infects a cell, sets up a virus production factory and then the cell dies as a consequence of being overwhelmed by virus. But there are not enough factories to explain the massive losses,' says Warner Greene, director of virology and immunology at the Gladstone Institutes, whose team published two papers today in Science and Nature describing the work. Greene estimates 95 percent of the cells that die in HIV infections are killed through pyroptosis, so the findings raise hope for a new type of treatment that could prevent HIV from progressing into AIDS. 'Inhibiting activation of the immune system is not a new concept, but this gives us a new pathway to target,' says Robert Gallo. And in fact, a drug already exists that can block pyroptosis."

cancel ×

84 comments

Both Science and Nature? (2, Insightful)

toQDuj (806112) | about 7 months ago | (#45750489)

This is how you milk science. I won't contest that it is incredibly useful, but the decision to publish in *both* Nature and Science shows the direction science is heading in. All for papers.

Re:Both Science and Nature? (5, Interesting)

rabtech (223758) | about 7 months ago | (#45750547)

If you don't publish papers, you don't get funding. Sucks, but that's what we get for budget cut after budget cut, tax cut, after tax cut.

The big question appears to be if the latent infected cells can clear or deactivate HIV, or if they'll happily activate, travel to the site of an infection of some other kind, then start spewing HIV everywhere.

This process is basically cells realizing they are being infected (virus) or eaten (bacteria) by a foreign organism, and responding by killing themselves and spewing massive amounts of chemicals that alert the immune system to the problem. Normally, this recruits other immune cells to the site and is probably the right strategy 99% of the time. The problem is when the infected cells are immune cells themselves, their death just recruits more immune cells to an area with a higher chance of picking up HIV. What they found was that the body's stockpile of immune cells in the spleen, etc (normally dormant, awaiting an infection) get infected by HIV, but don't replicate the virus due to being inactive, however they are active enough to sense the virus in their DNA and kill themselves before repair mechanisms can remove or deactivate the virus genes.

The drug mentioned apparently shuts down or reduces this pathway, opening you up to a higher risk of bacterial infection but slowing or stopping the massive die-off of immune cells (assuming they are able to clean themselves up).

Re:Both Science and Nature? (1)

rmdingler (1955220) | about 7 months ago | (#45750611)

Induces cellular level suicide, if you will... It could also be a Caspase 1 inhibitor.

Re:Both Science and Nature? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45750685)

Induces cellular level suicide, if you will... It could also be a Caspase 1 inhibitor.

From the Nature article abstract:

This cycle can be broken by caspase 1 inhibitors shown to be safe in humans, raising the possibility of a new class of ‘anti-AIDS’ therapeutics targeting the host rather than the virus.

Re: Both Science and Nature? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45750751)

And how do we ensure that the drug isn't put back on the patent schedule now that a new use for it has been identified?

That's what patents are for (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45752881)

You don't patent the molecule, but the specific treatment.

Re: Both Science and Nature? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45753317)

We don't "ensure" that at all. These treatments will result in new patents. The revenue from those patents will pay for the clinical trials that the FDA requires, plus the risk that the drug companies take.

Re: Both Science and Nature? (1)

MouseTheLuckyDog (2752443) | about 7 months ago | (#45753531)

OK. Here is a clue for you. The Gladstone Institutes is a nonprofit.
Since this is an established drug with an established record, upwards of 90% of the testing has been done.
So what risks are the drug companies taking?

a lot really (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45765987)

they did all the R&D that still needs to be paid for, new drug trials for efficacy (as safety trials were done) dosage trials, peer review panels....all they really know at this point is they have a molecule, it meets certain criteria and now the hard work starts, convincing the FDA and other world drug regulators(so about 60-90 new drug applications and hearings 1 for each country) this is a safe effective treatment for the public...

Re:Both Science and Nature? (1)

reverseengineer (580922) | about 7 months ago | (#45750719)

Induces cellular level suicide, if you will... It could also be a Caspase 1 inhibitor.

That's just what it is: VX-765 is belnacasan, a caspase 1 inhibitor (a drug target for epilepsy for its role in releasing inflammatory cytokines).

Are we to a Trillion Dollars Yet? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45751715)

All this money spent so that gay men can fuck each other up the ass with impunity.

Re:Are we to a Trillion Dollars Yet? (1)

chris.alex.thomas (1718644) | about 7 months ago | (#45752651)

ignorant cunt

Re:Are we to a Trillion Dollars Yet? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45757731)

Guess you love fucking other guys up the ass.

How many millions spent on this disease which began with gays, was spread by gays and is sustained by gays?

Re:Are we to a Trillion Dollars Yet? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45806933)

Guess you love fucking other guys up the ass.

Nope.

How many millions spent on this disease which began with gays, was spread by gays and is sustained by gays?

You are still an ignorant cunt. Just fuck off.

Stupid as well... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45752699)

...like a tree trunk...

Re:Both Science and Nature? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45751723)

Did you read the papers? They are separate and independent papers. The first three authors, ie, the people who actually did the experiments, are different people. You can't put too much into a single paper. First, there are page limits, and secondly, It's too difficult to get large papers through the peer review process. Papers need to be short focused and in bite sized pieces, where there are experts on the topic. You can't take two separate things, and then try to tie them together into one paper. It won't get published that way. You publish each piece individually. After a few years, maybe you can publish something that ties them together.

AIDS is God's way of saying homosexuality is wrong (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45750567)

Face it, God hates fags. Everyone knows that, but many are in denial. A lot of homos will be joining Matthew Shepard in hell. Mr. Shepard has been in hell for 5549 days so far. Let's do a little math: Eternity - 5549 days = Eternity. Chew on that, nancy boy. You will be joining Matthew Shepard soon enough.

Re:AIDS is God's way of saying homosexuality is wr (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45750593)

I'm sure you'll get molded down for your brutal honesty, but, well said, my friend.

"God" DOES NOT hate fags... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45751481)

He just hates the ones that enable and promote homosexuality by mainstreaming it.
Nowadays you can't avoid being confronted that there is a minority of people who choose
to ram their cocks into another's ass or likewise seek to have their ass filled by
another man's dick, even Netflix has a LGBT category.

Re:AIDS is God's way of saying homosexuality is wr (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45750675)

Clearly, your god is a douche-bro. Hates fags, but loves him some lesbians. They left the backwards baseball cap and half drunk vodka bottle off of the sistine chapel because it didn't play well with test audiences...

Re:AIDS is God's way of saying homosexuality is wr (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45751347)

The anus isn't a sex organ. It was designed by nature to expel excrement, not accept the insertion of a penis!

Re:Your mom ass fucked (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45751425)

Your mom...

Re:AIDS is God's way of saying homosexuality is wr (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45751745)

"The anus isn't a sex organ. It was designed by nature"...
How dare you say such a thing you infidel fool ? Do you want to unleash GOD's wrath on us all ?
You shall write "GOD designed humans" 100 millions times while flagelatting yourself, and maybe, maybe, GOD in its infinite kindness, will forgive you.

Re:AIDS is God's way of saying homosexuality is wr (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45751777)

Oh really wise guy? Then how come it feels so good? Prostrate stimulation feels really nice, and you don't have to be gay to enjoy it. You can use a toy, or use a woman's fingers, or whatever. Plus, it doesn't matter what nature designed, we have moved past that.

Funny... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45752709)

...considering that almost every str8 porn movie includes anal sex. Geez, so many stupid / conservative / religious commenters here.

Go back to the Middle Ages, that's where you belong to. Thanks for your cooperation.

re: Re:AIDS is God's way of saying homosexuality i (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45752719)

I wish I had a dollar for every dipshit who said that, and would then later brag about fucking his girlfriend in the ass. I really don't understand why straight guys fucking their girl's ass is fine, but fucking another guy's ass is an evil and disgusting thing.

Also, and this is quite important to note:Not all homosexuals engage in anal sex, you gigantic fucking dipshit.

Re:AIDS is God's way of saying homosexuality is wr (5, Insightful)

hey! (33014) | about 7 months ago | (#45750815)

Lesbians, by this logic, are God's chosen, since female-to-female transmission of HIV is extremely rare.

Re:AIDS is God's way of saying homosexuality is wr (0, Troll)

sumdumass (711423) | about 7 months ago | (#45750959)

What are you 5? I mean do you seriously think you are going to gain anything by responding to a troll with a troll comment? The poster you are replying to is nothing but a troll- likely not remotely religious and just spouting bigotry (if the AC wasn't you trying to set up the garbage reply you gave) and your trying to validate it with continuing the toll? The comment has so many negative votes, I had to hit the parent button just to see the context of your ramblings. So by your reply, you actually exposed more people to that vile post.

And you even have to inject specifically male homosexual activity in order separate gays from lesbians (which is an idiotic distinction anyways) which the parent did nothing of the sort. But on top of all that, you have to try to be offensive in the process. By your logic (or lack thereof), I can only reason you are the original poster and trying to troll the interweb.

Re:AIDS is God's way of saying homosexuality is wr (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45752069)

Sarcasm. You. Don't. Get it.

Re:AIDS is God's way of saying homosexuality is wr (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45757711)

Stupidity != sarcasm. He had to bend the entire statement in order to make something fit. It seems like he posted it just so he could try to offend someone in the reply.

Re:AIDS is God's way of saying homosexuality is wr (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45753005)

What are you 5?

Well, he did make it to +5, whereas you did not....

Though it should've been +5, Funny... I don't know what the hell is with that Insightful mark....

Re:AIDS is God's way of saying homosexuality is wr (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45753015)

You truly are living up to your namesake.

Re:AIDS is God's way of saying homosexuality is wr (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45750859)

A lot of homos will be joining Matthew Shepard in hell.

I read that as "A lot of homos will be joining Martha Steward in hell" and was all like "you eany meany!" For Martha makes us all something to chew on.

Re:AIDS is God's way of saying homosexuality is wr (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45751311)

Face it, God hates fags. Everyone knows that, but many are in denial. A lot of homos will be joining Matthew Shepard in hell. Mr. Shepard has been in hell for 5549 days so far. Let's do a little math: Eternity - 5549 days = Eternity. Chew on that, nancy boy. You will be joining Matthew Shepard soon enough.

WTF?? That's complete bullshit. Believing in God is silly and homos are just fine. Just put a condom on your cock whether you are straight or gay. Is this a too hard concept for you to understand? Jeez...

Yess!! (5, Insightful)

formfeed (703859) | about 7 months ago | (#45751885)

Face it, God hates fags.

Skin cancer is prove that God hates Scandinavians.
Current society is prove that God hates women.
Diabetes is prove that God hates chocolate.
Your comment is prove that God hates people.

Re:Yess!! (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45752495)

And your comment is proof that God hates grammar.

Re:Yess!! (1)

stoploss (2842505) | about 7 months ago | (#45758003)

Face it, God hates fags.

Skin cancer is prove that God hates Scandinavians.

Current society is prove that God hates women.

Diabetes is prove that God hates chocolate.

Your comment is prove that God hates people.

I would join your insightful religion. God hates us all and is trying to damn us with ironic punishments!

Re:Yess!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45767247)

Not just women. The court system is proof that God also hates men. Of course, since "men" are a subset of "people," I guess this was already included...

Re:AIDS is God's way of saying homosexuality is wr (1)

modmans2ndcoming (929661) | about 7 months ago | (#45751897)

God is fictional so have fun with trying to explain your bigotry in a world without randomly chosen morals written down in a 3000 year old book.

Re: AIDS is God's way of saying homosexuality is w (1)

staalmannen (1705340) | about 7 months ago | (#45752049)

more like 1600 years old. The christian bible was assembled as a political compromize in the 400s - including the classical prayer clearly stating that Jesus was tortured at the cross (a way to exclude the gnostics from the definition of christians). Apparently there are a lot of texts available that were classified as herretic back then which are the same age as those included in the NT. According to some of the Jesus was a bully in his teens using his super powers.... then again....we could just as well discus our hero-of-preference from the Marvel universe....

Re: AIDS is God's way of saying homosexuality is w (2)

modmans2ndcoming (929661) | about 7 months ago | (#45763073)

I know about Helena's play thing called the Council of Nicaea. Most of the crap we get spewed out of Christians' mouths are from Leviticus though so 3000 years is accurate though the written part is a little off since it was not written down until the Jewish exile to Babylon.

Re:AIDS is God's way of saying homosexuality is wr (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45752263)

Hahaha disregard that, I SUCK COCKS!!!!

Re:AIDS is God's way of saying homosexuality is wr (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45752433)

For an all powerful entity that oversees the history of the universe, He certainly took His sweet ass time trying to take out the gays. I would think He's want to do something earlier, like say, during the Roman times when sex between dudes were part of everyday life, but eh. Mayhap I just don't get the mindset of someone who could literally wish the gays away.

To attract goats, torture a goat (-1, Troll)

Maj Variola (2934803) | about 7 months ago | (#45750705)

The predator does something that attracts its prey. Does this surprise you? Morons. Spock, help me. The only times the quality of life (GDP/capita) has improved is during plagues and industrial revolutions.

Wow (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45750745)

So they have discovered something homeopaths have known just about forever.

Re:Wow (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45750809)

Homeopaths haven't got a fucking clue.

re: Wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45752823)

Tell me, since homeopaths dilute medicines to increase their effectiveness, but dump excess medicines down a drain - and only one needs to have done this - that will contaminate all water supplies for all of time.

Homeopathy is its own proof that it doesn't work.

Invest in Vertex? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45750819)

The caspase 1 that was inhibitor used (and stopped the T cells from dying) in the paper is owned by Vertex.

From the paper: "VX-765 is a caspase 1 inhibitor that has been tested in chronic epilepsy and psoriasis, and found in a phase IIa trial (http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01048255) to be safe and well tolerated over the six weeks length of the trial"

I do not have any association with Vertex and do not have any intention or knowledge of how to invest in Vertex.

Re:Invest in Vertex? (1)

sumdumass (711423) | about 7 months ago | (#45751057)

You seem to have the ability to comprehend this a bit more then I can so let me ask if this couldn't possible be a cure for HIV as well.

My though would be to extract a portion of the cells and cleans them from damaged cells you have a pure version. Then induce the self destruct while in a clean room and allow it all to implode on itself. after this is done, then simply stop the implosion, reintroduce the clean cells, and use the inhibitor to slowly bring the body back to normal. If successful, it will be HIV free.

Or am I thinking way to science fiction on this and what I said essentially the equivalent of using a transporter beam to isolate pathogens and direct them to a containment field instead of re-materializing the entire body. I'm thinking that basically it would be allowing the contamination to kill itself off and then rebuild the body without the flaws. Kind of like instead of fighting a fire one room at a time, let it burn down and rebuild a better house on the same land.

Great. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45750955)

Just what we need... more "healthy" HIV carriers infecting everyone else.

Big Pharma's wet dream is for HIV to be as common as herpes and non-lethal (provided you pay them $$$ for the treatments).

There's already a cure for HIV... quarantine.

Re:Great. (4, Informative)

antifoidulus (807088) | about 7 months ago | (#45751037)

As much as I hate to burst your "boo pharma, yay me!" bubble, the current batch of drugs, when taken properly(and that is the key) are almost as effective as condoms [va.gov] in preventing HIV transmission, and if used in conjunction with condoms, prevent probably about 99.9% of all infections. So yeah, obviously big pharma is trying to give everyone HIV. You cracked the case!

Tobacco has the same effect as VX-765 (1)

Nightlight3 (248096) | about 7 months ago | (#45751031)

Interestingly, the ancient medicinal plant, tobacco, is also caspase inhibitor [atsjournals.org] , just like the promising drug VX-765 (aka "belnacasan") [medkoo.com] in that article.

Re:Tobacco has the same effect as VX-765 (2)

rmdingler (1955220) | about 7 months ago | (#45751099)

It inhibits Caspase 3, necessary for apoptosis... I believe Caspase 1 is necessary for pyroptosis.

Re:Tobacco has the same effect as VX-765 (0)

Nightlight3 (248096) | about 7 months ago | (#45751541)

Tobacco smoke has a broad, multilevel anti-inflammatory effects, from inflammatory controls in vagus center, then via the upregulation of corticosteroids, down to stimulation of anti-inflammatory cellular alpha-7 receptors. This includes inhibition of the same inflammatory cytokines (IL-1beta, IL-18) [wiley.com] as done by VX-765.

Interestingly, nicotine only partially accounts for these anti-inflammatory effects, while some unknown components of the full tobacco smoke yield additional protection. For example in a related RA experiment [arthritis-research.com] to the one at the link, where mice with induced RA were divided into tobacco smoke, nicotine and untreated controls, the tobacco smoke group had the least damage to the cartilage and the longest delay of the onset of the disease, the controls had the most damage and the earliest onset, while nicotine group fell in between.

Of course, the antismoking junk science (one manifestation of the big the pharma's war on medicinal plants) strongly urges RA patients to immediately quit smoking since on non-randomized samples there RA is positively associated with tobacco smoking. What the hard science implies, such as the above and other experiments on anti-inflammatory effects of tobacco smoke, is that this positive statistical association at the level of epidemiology is due to self-medication. Taking into account that type of confounding is a taboo in the present antismoking "science."

Re:Tobacco has the same effect as VX-765 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45751797)

Whatever you’re smoking, I don’t think it’s tobacco.

Re:Tobacco has the same effect as VX-765 (1)

modmans2ndcoming (929661) | about 7 months ago | (#45751911)

Junk science huh? Keep telling yourself that.

Re:Tobacco has the same effect as VX-765 (3, Insightful)

Nightlight3 (248096) | about 7 months ago | (#45752219)

Epidemiology by itself isn't a junk science. It crosses into junk science when someone leaps from observed statistical associations on non-randomized samples to wishfully ($$$) declaring causal relations. Such associations are at best a hint that there may be causal relation, but one needs hard science, such as randomized trials or animal/human experiments to find out what kind of links (e.g. causal or protective/therapeutic) connect those correlated variables.

That's how it is done in normal science, you use statistical hint to make hypothesis that is followed up with hard science. But antismoking "science" is stuck on the same hint since 1950.

And it is not for lack of trying hard science. There were thousands of experiments done since then. The problem was that they all went the "wrong" way -- the smoking animals live longer, perform better on cognitive tasks, get cancers less often, etc. What can poor scientific mercenaries do, when their bosses want the opposite result, but stick with what works, parrot the statistical hints disguised as "science." This was so unusual pattern that already in 1958, the father of modern statistical methods, famous British mathematician R. A. Fisher noticed it and wrote [york.ac.uk] (pdf; this article also contains a very readable exposition of the sample randomization topic):

"Most of us thought at the time, on hearing the nature of evidence, which I hope to make clear a little later, that a good prima facie case had been made for further investigation. But the time has passed, and although further investigation, in a sense, has taken place, it has consisted largely of the repetition of observations of the same kind as those which Hill and his colleagues called attention to several years ago. I read a recent article to the effect that nineteen different investigations in different parts of the world had all concurred in confirming Dr. Hill's findings. I think they had concurred, but I think they were mere repetitions of evidence of the same kind..."

Yet, the antismoking "science" still rests its case squarely on the same kind of soft/junk science that Fisher objected to over half a century ago.

Re:Tobacco has the same effect as VX-765 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45752769)

I'm really not sure why you feel the need the randomly highlight certain words and phrases in your long rambling posts. All it does is serve to make your posts even more difficult to read than is necessary.

Re:Tobacco has the same effect as VX-765 (1)

sudon't (580652) | about 7 months ago | (#45755625)

Junk science huh? Keep telling yourself that.

The science linking smoking to lung disease is pretty clear, not to mention common-sensical. Inhaling large amounts smoke of any kind is not going to be good for you. OTOH, the so-called science behind the second-hand smoke scare is inconclusive, at best. Nor does it pass the common-sense test. You would think that people would question a claim that minute exposure to tobacco smoke could be dangerous, when smokers inhale huge lungfuls of smoke, all day, every day, for decades, and yet only 70% eventually develop lung disease. If their claims were true, smokers would be dead in a year. But people don't question it, of course, because the resulting bans suit them.

The amazing thing is that, once the anti-smoker movement got away with that one, their claims became ever more wild and unbelievable. So much so, that's it's become transparent that this is about moral disapproval, and not about science, or "saving lives." Witness the fight against e-cigs. But I'm guessing none of this will interest you.

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/000602.html

Re:Tobacco has the same effect as VX-765 (1)

modmans2ndcoming (929661) | about 7 months ago | (#45763083)

I don't want to breath in your shit. Its simple courtesy to not bother people in a closed environment with your nasty smelling smoke.

Re:Tobacco has the same effect as VX-765 (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 7 months ago | (#45751413)

Great, so now people may decide whether they die from aids or cancer.

It's just like with the elections. You have the free choice.

Re:Tobacco has the same effect as VX-765 (0)

Nightlight3 (248096) | about 7 months ago | (#45751645)

Not really. The association between tobacco smoking and lung cancer is, like the above link to rheumatoid arthritis, only statistical association on non-randomized samples, hence it only shows that tobacco smoking and lung cancer are in the same web of causes and effects, but not what the nature of those links is. For that you need hard science. As with the arthritis, the hard science (animal experiments, randomized trials), shows exactly the opposite -- tobacco smoke is protective against lung cancer.

For example, when dogs are exposed to high dose radon (where nearly animals half get lung cancer), 7 times fewer smoking dogs get lung cancer than non-smoking dogs. Similar results, of which you will never hear from your doctor or the news media, were found in numerous other animal experiments under variety of co-exposures to chemical carcinogens and industrial toxins. Such experiments when carried to the full lifespan of animals, also show that smoking animals live 20% longer, while remaining thinner and sharper into the old age.

Besides the above anti-inflammatory effects, some components of tobacco smoke nearly double the levels of the three primary internal antioxidants and detox enzymes (glutathione, catalase and SOD). The resulting doubled detox and protection rates lead to self-medication confounding (which is never accounted for) in the statistical associations on non-randomized samples. For reference to the above statements, as well as an in depth followup discussion, see this post [longecity.org] in a nootropic & life-extension forum longecity.

Re:Tobacco has the same effect as VX-765 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45752087)

Our dog smoked 3 packs a day for 14 years but we finally had to put him down when the vet diagnosed him with lung cancer.

What does that say?

Re:Tobacco has the same effect as VX-765 (1)

Nightlight3 (248096) | about 7 months ago | (#45752251)

It says that you should announce your great discovery to the whole world by publishing a paper and becoming famous since causing lung cancer via inhalation of tobacco smoke is still the unattained holy grail of the antismoking "science" that no one has been able to figure out how to achieve. Animals won't cooperate (half the smoking bastards are still alive after all the healthy living non-smoking ones have already gone to the happy hunting grounds), and even in the few randomized human trials that were ever done, the smoking group ended up with fewer lung cancers than the non-smoking/quit group. Check that thread mentioned earlier [longecity.org] for literature details and discussions (especially items #1, #2, #3, #6).

Re:Tobacco has the same effect as VX-765 (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 7 months ago | (#45752913)

Well, maybe they should next time use animals with a lifespan longer than a gnat next time. It's not like you get to die of lung cancer at 25 when you started smoking when you were 20. Usually, people tend to die around age 50 or so.

Re:Tobacco has the same effect as VX-765 (1)

colinrichardday (768814) | about 7 months ago | (#45751571)

Is death a caspase inhibitor?

Re:Tobacco has the same effect as VX-765 (1)

Nightlight3 (248096) | about 7 months ago | (#45751757)

In that sense, death is pain and suffering inhibitor too, including AIDS, except you don't get to enjoy the fruits. But here we talking about medicinal substances which can block the damaging cytokines while leaving you alive.

Re:Tobacco has the same effect as VX-765 (1)

colinrichardday (768814) | about 7 months ago | (#45754337)

Of course, if the "leaving you alive" part is important, I'd rather not use tobacco.

Re:Tobacco has the same effect as VX-765 (1)

Nightlight3 (248096) | about 7 months ago | (#45756123)

The responses illustrate how easily most people, especially the educated ones, fall for scams if they are wrapped into scientific language. That's why there are so many of them, especially from sickness industry since that's where people are the most ready to part with their money.

One little clue to help you recognize a pseudo-scientific scam is when you hear a pronouncement from high up "debate is over" [surgeongeneral.gov] or "science is settled" -- that's a scam. Another clue, especially regarding health pronouncements, is silence about experiments and exclusive focus on parroting statistical correlations on non-randomized samples, or throwing around scary numbers spewed by computer models based on such correlations. One more clue is when someone overdoes it on how solid their "science" is by comparing their scientifically sounding pronouncements to law of gravity.

So, is HIV still the cause?? (4, Interesting)

anvilmark (259376) | about 7 months ago | (#45751623)

HIV only kills ~5% of the T-cells.
Newly discovered pyroptosis pathway kills the other 95%
This is a radical departure from the accepted mechanisms of how HIV works. Pyroptosis can be triggered by a boatload of different inflammatory processes, I'll be looking forward to their smoking gun that HIV is the cause.
With all the research money poured into HIV research, it's taken them 20 years to notice this?

Re:So, is HIV still the cause?? (2, Insightful)

Arker (91948) | about 7 months ago | (#45751809)

It's a good question. All I see in this paper is fresh discovery of the same facts that were well known among skeptics like the Perth group back in 1990s. Is it really such a bizarre virus that acts like no other virus, kills like no other virus, and manages to hide the way it works so well that decades of research still leave us guessing? Or is it just a weak virus that cannot survive inside an uncompromised immune system and thus serves as a great diagnostic for immune problems that it does not actually cause?

Re:So, is HIV still the cause?? (2)

Stickerboy (61554) | about 7 months ago | (#45752845)

It's a good question. All I see in this paper is fresh discovery of the same facts that were well known among skeptics like the Perth group back in 1990s. Is it really such a bizarre virus that acts like no other virus, kills like no other virus, and manages to hide the way it works so well that decades of research still leave us guessing? Or is it just a weak virus that cannot survive inside an uncompromised immune system and thus serves as a great diagnostic for immune problems that it does not actually cause?

It's a horrible question. Treating the HIV infection with anti-HIV medications can for the most part prevent or regress the syndrome of AIDS. If it was just a "great diagnostic for immune problems that it does not actually cause", treating and suppressing the HIV infection should be 100% ineffective in helping the patient.

Re:So, is HIV still the cause?? (4, Interesting)

RDW (41497) | about 7 months ago | (#45752907)

Or is it just a weak virus that cannot survive inside an uncompromised immune system and thus serves as a great diagnostic for immune problems that it does not actually cause?

You are confusing legitimate high quality research with HIV denialist fiction. This work describes a new and potentially very important mechanism by which HIV infection and partial replication lead directly to cell death. Uninfected cells are not dying. Uninfected patients are not developing AIDS. Unfortunately, HIV denial is one of the more harmful conspiracy theories, leading to (e.g.) hundreds of thousands of avoidable AIDS deaths in South Africa when scientifically uninformed officials were in charge of health policy.

Re:So, is HIV still the cause?? (1)

stenvar (2789879) | about 7 months ago | (#45753397)

I'm not sure what gives you the idea that HIV is biologically unique or bizarre. There are lots of immune deficiencies, retroviruses, and persistent infections, both in animals and humans.

Re:So, is HIV still the cause?? (1)

doom (14564) | about 7 months ago | (#45755361)

I'm not sure what gives you the idea that HIV is biologically unique or bizarre

Yeah, it some ways it's similar to influenza.

There's was a something I saw recently about how new work on HIV-vaccines might actually lead to something like a permanent flu shot.

(Funny, I'd forgotten about the HIV-denialists. I had the vague feeling that one had faded away... No such luck.)

Re:So, is HIV still the cause?? (3, Interesting)

Stickerboy (61554) | about 7 months ago | (#45752817)

HIV only kills ~5% of the T-cells.
Newly discovered pyroptosis pathway kills the other 95%
This is a radical departure from the accepted mechanisms of how HIV works. Pyroptosis can be triggered by a boatload of different inflammatory processes, I'll be looking forward to their smoking gun that HIV is the cause.
With all the research money poured into HIV research, it's taken them 20 years to notice this?

Hi! Your comments are a sterling example of the dangers that having just a little knowledge in a certain field poses. As a doctor who has worked in an HIV clinic, let me give you the best practical proof for your reinventing of the wheel. Take an AIDS patient who is sick with an opportunistic infection. Cure the infection, and start the patient on a good regimen of anti-HIV medications. In most patients who aren't too far gone, their immune systems will rebound, and as long as they're compliant with taking their meds, the odds are they will never reexperience the practical consequences of an AIDS diagnosis.

Testing positive for HIV used to be a death sentence. Now with current anti-HIV meds, HIV can be relegated to a chronic illness less burdensome, and less deadly, than type 2 diabetes mellitus. Do you understand that? Treatment of an HIV infection can prevent the onset of AIDS, a clinical syndrome.

If you want a better proof, have a scientist inject you with HIV virus. Make a journal, and see what happens in 5 years.

Re:So, is HIV still the cause?? (1)

rmdingler (1955220) | about 7 months ago | (#45753285)

Why have so many diseases found a comfortable niche as chronic, but treatable?

Did we not, in years gone by, use to occasionally create cures and preventative vaccinations?

Re:So, is HIV still the cause?? (1)

DMUTPeregrine (612791) | about 7 months ago | (#45757241)

There are many diseases out there. Some are easy to cure, some hard. Just because we cured some diseases doesn't mean it's equally easy to cure the others. In years gone by we cured the "low-hanging fruit," and are now working to cure the difficult diseases.

Re:So, is HIV still the cause?? (1)

stenvar (2789879) | about 7 months ago | (#45753351)

With all the research money poured into HIV research, it's taken them 20 years to notice this?

Because medical research is hard. What you ignorantly refer to as "noticing" requires a lot of skill, insight, and hard work to discover.

And this doesn't invalidate prior approaches to HIV treatment: targeting the virus has been rational and effective, no matter how it ultimately does its damage.

Re: So, is HIV still the cause?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45753843)

Why didn't they just turn the log levels to debug? ? ?

This is Also Know As DDoS attack (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45751679)

They should have asked anonymous before

So HIV is an Auto Immune disease? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45752311)

I'm not sure I understood everything but it sounds like a leukemia for t-cells.

Wonderful! We'll make millions patenting that! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45752487)

Oh my God I love medical science. Legally making offers people cannot refuse.

Re:Wonderful! We'll make millions patenting that! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45753427)

Actually, it's more like billions and trillions that companies will make if these drugs actually work.

And the problem isn't patents, it's the combination of patents, FDA regulations, and mandatory universal coverage; it's that combination that allows (and requires) drug companies to charge huge amounts of money.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...