Science majors why do you think people are so naive when it comes to "the cure"

[utvol23]

Originally Posted by PleasurePhD

Originally Posted by AZwildcats

I believe there is a gene native to some people in Sweden that makes them genetically immune to HIV-1 infection, the most common form of the virus. If I remember correctly they have a mutation in their immune cells that prevents the CCR5 receptor from forming on their immune cells, getting rid of the major binding domain of the virus.

Almost got it there buddy.

It's a MISSING gene that is missing in like 1% of the Caucasian population. Due to the black plague and resistance to that disease because of this mutation, a certain population of white individuals were able to survive and procreate with this mutation. Since the co-receptor is redundant and other genes can act in its place it's a non-lethal mutation.  But, HIV uses this co-receptor to mediate in viral entry into the cell so that it can infect the host and integrate into his/her genome. With the gene missing and there for the co-receptor missing, certain strains of the virus can't infect these individuals.

Modern day evolution/natural selection. 

lol beat me- too it.

DC magic had and has the virus. Just because it is non detectable doesn't mean it isn't there because it is

 

[utvol23]

HIV has gone from a death sentence to a virus you can live with for decades as long as you strictly adhere to your antiretroviral regimen.

 

[AZwildcats]

Originally Posted by PleasurePhD

Originally Posted by AZwildcats

I believe there is a gene native to some people in Sweden that makes them genetically immune to HIV-1 infection, the most common form of the virus. If I remember correctly they have a mutation in their immune cells that prevents the CCR5 receptor from forming on their immune cells, getting rid of the major binding domain of the virus.

Almost got it there buddy.

It's a MISSING gene that is missing in like 1% of the Caucasian population. Due to the black plague and resistance to that disease because of this mutation, a certain population of white individuals were able to survive and procreate with this mutation. Since the co-receptor is redundant and other genes can act in its place it's a non-lethal mutation.  But, HIV uses this co-receptor to mediate in viral entry into the cell so that it can infect the host and integrate into his/her genome. With the gene missing and there for the co-receptor missing, certain strains of the virus can't infect these individuals.

Modern day evolution/natural selection. 

looks like I got that question wrong on my final 

 

[pig love]

“The average cost of HIV treatment is $14,000 to $20,000 a year,

 

[undermedicated]

Originally Posted by PleasurePhD

Originally Posted by UnderMedicated

Why is Steve jobs even being mentioned, he didn't even accept treatment for a while.
Dude has a point by saying a cure would mean less money for the companies. 

Let me post it for you....

 Wrong use.

 

[yeah]

Originally Posted by PleasurePhD

Cancer cells are YOU, just an out of control part of you. So how do you kill yourself without killing yourself?

How do you feel about the prospect of nano-machines? From what I've seen on the perimeter of the science world, they've been getting a lot more attention.

 

[syxth element]

The ignorance in this thread is strong 

 
People act like cures are easy to make. Prescription drugs cost not only a lot of time but millions of dollars of investing in R&D and clinical trials. It takes an average of 12-15 years to get an investigational new drug approved by the FDA, unless it's an orphan drug that gets rushed to approval (which is usually rare). Companies tend to make generics of their own drugs whose patents have expired in order to continue to make money in the long run.

 

[pig love]

Originally Posted by syxth element

The ignorance in this thread is strong 

 
People act like cures are easy to make. Prescription drugs cost not only a lot of time but millions of dollars of investing in R&D and clinical trials. It takes an average of 12-15 years to get an investigational new drug approved by the FDA, unless it's an orphan drug that gets rushed to approval (which is usually rare). Companies tend to make generics of their own drugs whose patents have expired in order to continue to make money in the long run.

What are you talking about?

HIV/AIDS has been around for 33 years?

Cancer? I have no idea

  

 

[pleasurephd]

Originally Posted by AZwildcats

Originally Posted by PleasurePhD

Originally Posted by AZwildcats

I believe there is a gene native to some people in Sweden that makes them genetically immune to HIV-1 infection, the most common form of the virus. If I remember correctly they have a mutation in their immune cells that prevents the CCR5 receptor from forming on their immune cells, getting rid of the major binding domain of the virus.

Almost got it there buddy.

It's a MISSING gene that is missing in like 1% of the Caucasian population. Due to the black plague and resistance to that disease because of this mutation, a certain population of white individuals were able to survive and procreate with this mutation. Since the co-receptor is redundant and other genes can act in its place it's a non-lethal mutation.  But, HIV uses this co-receptor to mediate in viral entry into the cell so that it can infect the host and integrate into his/her genome. With the gene missing and there for the co-receptor missing, certain strains of the virus can't infect these individuals.

Modern day evolution/natural selection. 

looks like I got that question wrong on my final 

Not really. You're right. I just added a little extra to what you said for the most part. Your wording of native gene threw me off. But, you're right that Swedish people I think do carry the mutation the most, and it IS a mutation that prevents the CCR5 co-receptor from properly being expressed. A deletion of part of the gene I believe (there are other mutant copies and or completely missing genes though) is I why I stressed the MISSING part, cause of the missing base pairs in the gene and mostly cause the missing expression at the protein level of co-receptor. Lastly, the wording about "missing the major binding domain" throws me off too. It sounds like you're saying HIV itself is missing a binding domain which would be wrong, but what really is happening, and what I think you meant to say is that HIV uses CCR5 a chemokine receptor as one of its main co-receptors for viral binding and entry and that receptor on the HOST cell is missing so the virus can't enter. But FYI, it doesn't use it as its main receptor, its a co-receptor.

If I was your prof I would still give you credit

 

[pleasurephd]

Originally Posted by UnderMedicated

Originally Posted by PleasurePhD

Originally Posted by UnderMedicated

Why is Steve jobs even being mentioned, he didn't even accept treatment for a while.
Dude has a point by saying a cure would mean less money for the companies. 

Let me post it for you....

 Wrong use.

How did I use is it wrong? By saying that's what you might as well had just posted since your comments clearly showed that you didn't read the previous posts. 

Basically, I was saying your comments showed you didn't read and so they are pointless, as pointless as posting that gif.

 

[pleasurephd]

Originally Posted by Yeah

Originally Posted by PleasurePhD

Cancer cells are YOU, just an out of control part of you. So how do you kill yourself without killing yourself?

How do you feel about the prospect of nano-machines? From what I've seen on the perimeter of the science world, they've been getting a lot more attention.

What exactly do you want to know? Just my opinion about its feasibility or viability?

Nanomedicine is a truly novel treatment field and holds TONS of potential.

During my Masters I used self assembling nanoparticles as part of my proposed targeted combination therapy system for curing breast cancer. It showed very high levels of success in tumor targeting. tumor regressions, and limited side effects. (In an in vivo model) 

Nanomachines are the next step for nanomedicine and I truly believe that we will reach a point where we will be able to utilize these tiny robots in medicine very successfully.

 

[utvol23]

The CCR5 deletion is a 32 base pair deletion which just makes it shorter. delta 32

 

[undermedicated]

Originally Posted by PleasurePhD

Originally Posted by UnderMedicated

Originally Posted by PleasurePhD


Let me post it for you....

 Wrong use.

How did I use is it wrong? By saying that's what you might as well had just posted since your comments clearly showed that you didn't read the previous posts. 

Basically, I was saying your comments showed you didn't read and so they are pointless, as pointless as posting that gif.

 Both comments were replying to stuff said in this exact thread smart guy.

 

[yeah]

Originally Posted by PleasurePhD

Originally Posted by Yeah

Originally Posted by PleasurePhD

Cancer cells are YOU, just an out of control part of you. So how do you kill yourself without killing yourself?

How do you feel about the prospect of nano-machines? From what I've seen on the perimeter of the science world, they've been getting a lot more attention.

What exactly do you want to know? Just my opinion about its feasibility or viability?

Nanomedicine is a truly novel treatment field and holds TONS of potential.

During my Masters I used self assembling nanoparticles as part of my proposed targeted combination therapy system for curing breast cancer. It showed very high levels of success in tumor targeting. tumor regressions, and limited side effects. (In an in vivo model) 

Nanomachines are the next step for nanomedicine and I truly believe that we will reach a point where we will be able to utilize these tiny robots in medicine very successfully.

In all, do you think that a cure to common forms of cancer will be achieved through the use of nanomachines?

Also, if you don't mind, do you think that nanomachines run the risk of becoming a bigger threat than anything else? I.E. do you think that biological weapons can ever be created through the use of nanomachines? I know that nanomachines and viruses have a lot in common (viruses are essentially nature's nanomachines, from what I understand,) and to imagine if a corporation could replicate something like the ebola virus... it's a scary thought.

 

[atlien seeko]

Originally Posted by UTVOL23

The CCR5 deletion is a 32 base pair deletion which just makes it shorter. delta 32

Japan 5  

edit:
I just Googled that quote, and apparently, you're serious. Damb.

 

[pleasurephd]

Originally Posted by UnderMedicated

Originally Posted by PleasurePhD

Originally Posted by UnderMedicated

 Wrong use.

How did I use is it wrong? By saying that's what you might as well had just posted since your comments clearly showed that you didn't read the previous posts. 

Basically, I was saying your comments showed you didn't read and so they are pointless, as pointless as posting that gif.

 Both comments were replying to stuff said in this exact thread smart guy.

Obviously you read the comments about Steve Jobs, but clearly you didn't read the previous posts to understand he was brought up in the first place.

Either that or your reading comprehension just sucks, smart guy.

 

[utvol23]

Originally Posted by ATLien Seeko

Originally Posted by UTVOL23

The CCR5 deletion is a 32 base pair deletion which just makes it shorter. delta 32

Japan 5  

edit:
I just Googled that quote, and apparently, you're serious. Damb.

lol what'd you think I was talkin about

 

[pleasurephd]

Originally Posted by Yeah

Originally Posted by PleasurePhD

Originally Posted by Yeah


How do you feel about the prospect of nano-machines? From what I've seen on the perimeter of the science world, they've been getting a lot more attention.

What exactly do you want to know? Just my opinion about its feasibility or viability?

Nanomedicine is a truly novel treatment field and holds TONS of potential.

During my Masters I used self assembling nanoparticles as part of my proposed targeted combination therapy system for curing breast cancer. It showed very high levels of success in tumor targeting. tumor regressions, and limited side effects. (In an in vivo model) 

Nanomachines are the next step for nanomedicine and I truly believe that we will reach a point where we will be able to utilize these tiny robots in medicine very successfully.

In all, do you think that a cure to common forms of cancer will be achieved through the use of nanomachines?

Also, if you don't mind, do you think that nanomachines run the risk of becoming a bigger threat than anything else? I.E. do you think that biological weapons can ever be created through the use of nanomachines? I know that nanomachines and viruses have a lot in common (viruses are essentially nature's nanomachines, from what I understand,) and to imagine if a corporation could replicate something like the ebola virus... it's a scary thought.

I think that a lot is possible with nanomachines including the possibility to help cure/treat cancers. Specifically using them to directly target cancer cells instead of normal cells to destroy them or to deliver drugs to them, for example. 

With any new technology there is the risk of bad people using them for bad things. Nanomachines which could be used to specifically target certain parts of the body to do very specific things for treatment could most certainly be used to wreck havoc on people as well. It wouldn't be classified as a biological weapon since robots are not organic "living things", but I get what you're asking. And, yes they could be used to create weapons, but hopefully that will never happen. You can't prevent a wonderful technology from being developed just cause there is risk involved, with that attitude there would never be any new technology. Also, its a problem with people not the technology itself.

Nanomachines aren't really like viruses except for the fact that they are small and can do a lot for their size. Viruses are organic and still use RNA/DNA and proteins to do their work, to live. Nanomachines are tiny robots which would mostly be composed of metal or other conducting materials.

Nanomachines don't really pose any additional threat then what's already out there that people can use to create biological weapons. Using genetic manipulation to create viral weapons for example. People can already do things like this. The only additional thing would be that nanomachines could be controlled directly, and viruses cant.

 

[pleasurephd]

Originally Posted by UTVOL23

The CCR5 deletion is a 32 base pair deletion which just makes it shorter. delta 32

Yes, CCR5 delta 32. That's the main mutation which has been found to be associated with these individuals and the reasoning for the missing receptor on their cells a lack of protein expression.

A shortened gene causes the absence of proper gene expression of this receptor.

 

[Deleted member 43702]

The cure has been announced in the mainstream media pretty lowkey.

Check Google. You need to be of means though.

 

[hankmoody]

Originally Posted by G o D Jewels

The cure has been announced in the mainstream media pretty lowkey.

Check Google. You need to be of means though.

So lowkey you can't even link to it... very nice. 

 

[atlien seeko]

Originally Posted by UTVOL23

Originally Posted by ATLien Seeko

Originally Posted by UTVOL23

The CCR5 deletion is a 32 base pair deletion which just makes it shorter. delta 32

Japan 5  

edit:
I just Googled that quote, and apparently, you're serious. Damb.

lol what'd you think I was talkin about

What all the rest of the kids on the net are talking about...

Nonesense. I need to join this intellignece club.

 

[milestailsprowe]

I find this thread to be STRAIGHT COMEDY.
Like SillyPutty said Aids changes constantly and because its spread out over the world you might find different ways of it all over. The only way to deal with it as of the moment is through treatments till someone finds out how to shut it down in it a generic way which works will all forms of HIV/Aids.

Cancer is the same way. It most likely will NEVER be 10% curable due to it effects everyone differently. It could start in the lung then spread to the heart with one person. It could start in the leg of another. Cancer has too many forms.

When it comes to the "Cure", people should really understand that there may never be one but on how to treat the disease

 

[atlien seeko]

Originally Posted by milestailsprowe

I find this thread to be STRAIGHT COMEDY.
Like SillyPutty said Aids changes constantly and because its spread out over the world you might find different ways of it all over. The only way to deal with it as of the moment is through treatments till someone finds out how to shut it down in it a generic way which works will all forms of HIV/Aids.

Cancer is the same way. It most likely will NEVER be 10% curable due to it effects everyone differently. It could start in the lung then spread to the heart with one person. It could start in the leg of another. Cancer has too many forms.

When it comes to the "Cure", people should really understand that there may never be one but on how to treat the disease

Why? Because people dont understand? What exactly is comedic to you? The subject matter?

 

[curbyourenthusiasm]

lmao lance armstrong got his testicle removed and took many many many steroids and hormones...

lmao @ he's been cured of anything

i love hearing people regurgitate something they heard and thought sounded smart

i agree, its more profitable to treat a disease than cure it, i mean, who's making billions off the newest polo medicine? right.

but at the same time, you say that, and if we really pushed, i doubt you'd be able to articulate any sort of support for saying it

sounds like you're repeating something you heard.

thats just my honest opinion...i maybe wrong.