<p><a href="http://www.sltrib.com/business/ci_3482712%5B/url%5D">http://www.sltrib.com/business/ci_3482712</a></p>
<p>I, personally, think there is a good chance it might be a cure, but I guess someone would have to summarize the results.</p>
<p>I would have to see the actual published article rather than just a news stub.</p>
<p>It does look promising, but keep in mind that there are literally [insert 5 random digits here] cures for HIV/AIDS, cancer, etc.</p>
<p>It appears that the CSAs work by binding to HIV's gp120 site, which is used to attach the virus to T-cells for infection. gp120 is a very frequent target (in fact, I just completed my work on a protein that attaches to gp120).</p>
<p>Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if CSA flops or comes up shorthanded.</p>
<p>The article also states that "all known strains" of HIV can be killed with CSA, implying that CSA attacks a fundamental configuration in gp120 that is not likely to mutate even as the virus itself evolves.</p>
<p>To give another example of research that I am familar with, there is a protein that has been discovered that can kill brain cancer cells in less than one hour at a concentration of less than 1 nanogram per milliliter (<.00000001 grams in a milliliter!!! I hope I got the correct number of zeroes). Given that the body contains only a few liters of blood, we could concoct a delivery system for this protein to target only CNS tumor cells and kill them with an insignificant amount of protein. This product may or may not become fully developed in 20 years or whatever.</p>
<p>Basically, what I'm saying is: CSAs look good, but don't get your hopes up.</p>
<p>I can't be too sure that there is a cure because quite personally I'm a little skeptical about the idea for finding the cure for a virus. Especially one like HIV/AIDS that uses your own DNA to replicate itself making it extremely hard to kill the virus off itself without attacking your own cells.</p>
<p>But my skepticism aside, I think that it's possible that they have something, but not necessarily the cure yet. Although I hope that I am completely wrong and they have indeed found the cure. Now they can go onto finding cures for all the other deadly viruses out there too. But I would be very interested to hear how this turns out.</p>
<p>When I saw the title of the thread, I was expecting the professor to have said something like: "Kill all homos."</p>
<p>to jpps1: I hope you're not implying that you think HIV/AIDS is predominant amongst the homosexual population...</p>
<p>I would think the only reason this stereotype exists is because of the fact that HIV/AIDS was discovered in a gay couple in 1981.</p>
<p>In 2004 (or 2005, I don't remember exactly which year). The NIH found that approximately 90% of HIV infections are found in heterosexual people.</p>
<p>With regards to my previous statement, 10% infection among gays isn't significant unless considerably less (or do I use fewer here? idk.... where are those grammar sticklers when you need 'em?) than 10% of the population is gay. I admit that I don't know the ratio between straight/gay people</p>
<p>
[quote]
I can't be too sure that there is a cure because quite personally I'm a little skeptical about the idea for finding the cure for a virus. Especially one like HIV/AIDS that uses your own DNA to replicate itself making it extremely hard to kill the virus off itself without attacking your own cells.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Actually Diana, since CSAs (and a myriad of other products that have similar function) attack the virus through their cellular binding receptors. Therefore, the virus has to be unattached and outside the cell, which is still uninfected.</p>
<p>
[quote]
to jpps1: I hope you're not implying that you think HIV/AIDS is predominant amongst the homosexual population...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think that person was joking around, referring to the fact that the work is taking place at BYU. </p>
<p>cause... that was one of my first thoughts too.</p>
<p>^^^ Probably....</p>
<p>One very unfortunate fact about cyberspace is the fact that sarcasm is harder to detect.</p>
<p>I've kinda learned that the hard way</p>
<p>College<em>Here</em>I_Come: Sorry...I'm a little stupid, but what about the cells that are already affected? Wouldn't the continue to replicate? So the person would still be affected...unless you are supposed to take this drug as some kind of vaccine.</p>
<p>Yeah, I'm just confusing myself even more the more that I try to think about this.</p>
<p>
[quote]
the compound invented by Paul D. Savage of Brigham Young University appears to hunt down and kill HIV.
[/quote]
Hmm... didn't know you can "kill" viruses as they are abiotic</p>
<p>diana, what you said was correct... however, if the drug could effectively affect all the HIV viruses in the body, disabling each and every virus' binding site(how HIV enters white blood cells), it could render all HIV useless</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
In 2004 (or 2005, I don't remember exactly which year). The NIH found that approximately 90% of HIV infections are found in heterosexual people.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>Well, since gays are less than 10% of the population, wouldn't that imply that AIDS is found in higher percentages among gays?</p>
<p>/not criticizing the lifestyle, just pointing out facts</p>
<p>
[quote]
Well, since gays are less than 10% of the population, wouldn't that imply that AIDS is found in higher percentages among gays?</p>
<p>/not criticizing the lifestyle, just pointing out facts
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, what percentage of the population is gay? I honestly have no idea.... I couldn't tell a gay man apart from a straight man even if the homosexual wore a pink tie with a big fat "G" on it.</p>
<p>1 in 10 people is gay. At least, that is what I've heard.</p>
<p>That may include closeted gays, too.</p>
<p>From Wikipedia:</p>
<p>
[quote]
The Kinsey Reports found that approximately four percent of adult Americans were exclusively homosexual for their entire lives, and approximately 10 percent were homosexual in their behaviour for some portion of their lives
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I read a book summarizing data on gays (returned it to the library, forgot the title), and it said the 10% figure is off-the-wall. It said that most likely 1-2% of the female population is gay, 3-4% of the male population. Ergo: the lower bound gay estimate is 2%, the upper bound, 3%. It also said almost all gays live in urban, very cosmopolitan places. In places like this, it said, the gay percentage is ~7-8%.</p>
<p>As #14 said, 10% have "homosexual behavious for some portion of their lives."</p>
<p>I'd say 4 or 5%, completely non-confused, etc. of the population is gay. But, it can't be determined exactly since many don't come out, hide it, etc. so it's really just a blind guess.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Hmm... didn't know you can "kill" viruses as they are abiotic
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Since abiotic and biotic are pretty random terms man-made. Yet, I believe viruses should be classified as biotic.</p>
<p>However, the arising question is, if it attacks the binding receptor to the HIV area, what is the binding receptor normally for?</p>
<p>Like, for the virus to attach, it's modified itself to attach onto this binding receptor. However, what was the initial evolution purpose of this receptor? What I'm saying is, even if this kill-bind receptor turns out to work (which I skeptically doubt) what other functions will it disable in a cell? As many of us have seen, evolution has effectively disabled just about any part of the cell that is a hindrance to it's growing capacity. With undoubtly the fastest growing rate and the largest numbers, this receptor obviously has an importance which is not yet known.</p>
<p>I definately would agree that around 10% of the population is gay/lesbian/bi/transsexual/asexual. In fact, I'd be surprised if the real number (which can't be determined because of people in the closet) isn't higher than that.</p>
<p>i found a cure</p>
<p>Take all of the victims, bring them to a island and let them live there. Have a ton of sex and send them all sorts of meds. Let them live the rest of their lives having hot sex with people who have the disease. S
Problem solved./</p>
<p>
[quote]
Since abiotic and biotic are pretty random terms man-made. Yet, I believe viruses should be classified as biotic.</p>
<p>However, the arising question is, if it attacks the binding receptor to the HIV area, what is the binding receptor normally for?</p>
<p>Like, for the virus to attach, it's modified itself to attach onto this binding receptor. However, what was the initial evolution purpose of this receptor? What I'm saying is, even if this kill-bind receptor turns out to work (which I skeptically doubt) what other functions will it disable in a cell? As many of us have seen, evolution has effectively disabled just about any part of the cell that is a hindrance to it's growing capacity. With undoubtly the fastest growing rate and the largest numbers, this receptor obviously has an importance which is not yet known.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The receptor you're referring to on the cell is CD4, which is primarily found on T-cells.</p>
<p>We NEED CD4 receptors on those cells. T-cells without CD4 receptors are useless because it is through those receptors that T-cells interact with things we don't want in our body.</p>
<p>Maybe I'm nopt reading your post clearly (since I went over it in 2 seconds), so I apologize in advance if I appear to be insulting your intelligence (I'm typing this real fast as well, around 50-55 wpm). The protein described in the article attaches to the <strong>virus'</strong> receptor, not to the cell's receptor.</p>