Cure for HIV, Ebola, Flu

[Procrustes Stretched]

and what studies will happen with humans will be dictated by what we see happen in the lab animals, not news stories.

Of course.

I linked to the news story precisely because it is easily understood by the average person. Very few people here are interested in reading technical, dry journal articles.

I understand and I apologized for jumping down your throat. In this area I am too tired of all the bullshit and all the crap. Seen too much of it.

ltr

D

 

[geauxtohell]

So healthy cells would repair themselves, would that mean unhealthy cells, say like cancerous cells, wouldn't?

Are cancer cells viruses?

Course not. But that doesnt really answer my question does it? I'd like to know what it does to cancer cells as they are unhealthy.

You aren't curious at all?

It would lower the incidence of cancer caused by viruses like the Epstein-Barr Virus (causes mono and is basically ubiquitous whether you've had Mono or not).

Anyways, this thread is about viruses, why is cancer the issue?

 

[geauxtohell]

The downside? It only works on lipid-enveloped viruses.

.

In layman's terms, that means what, as far as application and effectiveness are concerned?

It means it doesn't work on all viruses, just a certain type.

To add, non-enveloped viruses tend to cause GI issues. It wouldn't cover the adenovirus, parvovirus, polio, Hep A, coxsackievirus (hand, foot, and mouth), Hep E, and the Rotavirus (and a few others).

It would cover Hep B, C, D, all Flu, the Hantavirus, measles, mumps, rubella, croup (paramyxovirus), the Herpes family (HSV 1 and 2, varicella (chickenpox and shingles), CMV, EBV, smallpox.

This is pretty amazing. Hopefully it pans out.

 

[strollingbones]

you children are so young....not me...i remember rh factor....go to a graveyard look at the babies graves who just lived one day.....early 1950's.....i remember polio...i assure you that mal was fast tracked....again go to the grave yards....the infant graves who lived for a year or two....i still remember the fuss over taking it or not...my mother had no qualms....she stated she knew what polio did ...even if she wasnt sure what the vaccine would do...


in the early 50's people still died of conditions easily dealt with today....and there have been many medical advances over the decades....some small....some hopefully like this ljoo1....a giant leap


but then again, what happens if everyone lives foreve?

 

[geauxtohell]

you children are so young....not me...i remember rh factor....go to a graveyard look at the babies graves who just lived one day.....early 1950's.....i remember polio...i assure you that mal was fast tracked....again go to the grave yards....the infant graves who lived for a year or two....i still remember the fuss over taking it or not...my mother had no qualms....she stated she knew what polio did ...even if she wasnt sure what the vaccine would do...


in the early 50's people still died of conditions easily dealt with today....and there have been many medical advances over the decades....some small....some hopefully like this ljoo1....a giant leap


but then again, what happens if everyone lives foreve?

You are right about that. We have reached a day and age when people are less afraid of the disease (polio) than they are of the "cure" (vaccination) to the extent where people aren't getting their kids the polio vaccine.

I suppose iron lungs are going to have to make a comeback before some people are convinced.

 

[Dr Gregg]

Course not. But that doesnt really answer my question does it? I'd like to know what it does to cancer cells as they are unhealthy.

You aren't curious at all?

As cancer cells are immortal, and able to heal themselves far faster than normal human cells, this treatment is completely useless against most tumors.

Sorry.

Thank you for asking my question.

They are immortal? You learn something new everyday.

Yup, normal cells will eventually die out and not be able to replicate anymore. Issues with losing of small amounts of DNA each time they replicate. They can only replicate a certain amount of times. With cancer, you get mutation of genes that lead to excess growth (oncogenes). YOu also get mutations that mutate the genes that prevent excessive growt (tumor suppressors). Then a whole bunch of other things need to go wrong. Tumors that grow large need blood to keep a live, so they will have mutations that create new blood vessels (process called angiogenesis).

We "immortalize" cells to work with them in culture. if you take cells out of an animal and grow them, they won't last that long in culture. So they are altered with genes that lead to them growing in culture indefinitely so they are easier to work with.

 

[Dr Gregg]

And why will it have to wait for further testing on animals? If a terminally ill human volunteers to be tested, why shouldnt they be allowed to?

Because it could mess up the trials. Anything bad that happens during trials need to be reported. Every person who takes the experimental medicine must be recorded and its part of the New Drug Application. If a person is so far gone or has other issues and dies or has other problems, people will blame in on the drug and it could hinder getting the drug approved to market.

Part of the process of going to clinical trials in humans is toxicity studies in animals. Testing if it causes cancer, how high a dose is toxic, and most importantly, the pharmacokinetics. Which means how the drug is processed in the animal, where the drug deposits, what are the metabolites, how fast its cleared from the body, etc.

 

[Dr Gregg]

you children are so young....not me...i remember rh factor....go to a graveyard look at the babies graves who just lived one day.....early 1950's.....i remember polio...i assure you that mal was fast tracked....again go to the grave yards....the infant graves who lived for a year or two....i still remember the fuss over taking it or not...my mother had no qualms....she stated she knew what polio did ...even if she wasnt sure what the vaccine would do...


in the early 50's people still died of conditions easily dealt with today....and there have been many medical advances over the decades....some small....some hopefully like this ljoo1....a giant leap


but then again, what happens if everyone lives foreve?

Technology is like 10,000 times better today than in the 1950's. Much better methods to study toxicity, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, etc. So its very disingenuous to compare today to the 1950s when science expand exponentially and we are worlds apart scientifically from the 1950's.

 

[geauxtohell]

you children are so young....not me...i remember rh factor....go to a graveyard look at the babies graves who just lived one day.....early 1950's.....i remember polio...i assure you that mal was fast tracked....again go to the grave yards....the infant graves who lived for a year or two....i still remember the fuss over taking it or not...my mother had no qualms....she stated she knew what polio did ...even if she wasnt sure what the vaccine would do...


in the early 50's people still died of conditions easily dealt with today....and there have been many medical advances over the decades....some small....some hopefully like this ljoo1....a giant leap


but then again, what happens if everyone lives foreve?

Technology is like 10,000 times better today than in the 1950's. Much better methods to study toxicity, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, etc. So its very disingenuous to compare today to the 1950s when science expand exponentially and we are worlds apart scientifically from the 1950's.

Yeah, but all the technology in the world can't replace a phrenic nerve that's been shot at the anterior horn by the polio virus.

But a $12 vaccine can prevent it.

 

[mal]

Don't get too carried away. Viruses have a way of willing themselves past these temporary obstacles. Enjoy it while it lasts, but it's not permanent

There's already a Cure for the Majority of New HIV Infections in the First World...

Don't have Anal Sex with Men and don't use IV Drugs...

^And Avoid those People Sexually.



peace...

 

[geauxtohell]

Don't get too carried away. Viruses have a way of willing themselves past these temporary obstacles. Enjoy it while it lasts, but it's not permanent

There's already a Cure for the Majority of New HIV Infections in the First World...

Don't have Anal Sex with Men and don't use IV Drugs...

^And Avoid those People Sexually.



peace...

That's not a cure, it's prevention and you should toss in all other forms of risky behavior (i.e. unprotected sex of any type) for consistency. Of course, on the issue of gay sex, I expect such stupidity from you.

 

[mal]

Don't get too carried away. Viruses have a way of willing themselves past these temporary obstacles. Enjoy it while it lasts, but it's not permanent

There's already a Cure for the Majority of New HIV Infections in the First World...

Don't have Anal Sex with Men and don't use IV Drugs...

^And Avoid those People Sexually.



peace...

That's not a cure, it's prevention and you should toss in all other forms of risky behavior (i.e. unprotected sex of any type) for consistency. Of course, on the issue of gay sex, I expect such stupidity from you.

Statistically it is VERY Unlikely for (2) Heterosexuals who do not Engage in Sex with Bi-Sexuals or People on the Down Low or who Shoot Drugs to get HIV...

It's almost Nil.

That's the Facts, and the CDC Documents.

Even in their "Heterosexual" Category it's Qualified with that.

Call the CDC Stupid, Asshole.



peace...

 

[geauxtohell]

There's already a Cure for the Majority of New HIV Infections in the First World...

Don't have Anal Sex with Men and don't use IV Drugs...

^And Avoid those People Sexually.



peace...

That's not a cure, it's prevention and you should toss in all other forms of risky behavior (i.e. unprotected sex of any type) for consistency. Of course, on the issue of gay sex, I expect such stupidity from you.

Statistically it is VERY Unlikely for (2) Heterosexuals who do not Engage in Sex with Bi-Sexuals or People on the Down Low or who Shoot Drugs to get HIV...

It's almost Nil.

That's the Facts, and the CDC Documents.

Even in their "Heterosexual" Category it's Qualified with that.

Call the CDC Stupid, Asshole.



peace...

"Statistically Very Unlikely" =/= Statistically Impossible.

You won't hear me dispute that certain sexual practices are more risky for contracting HIV than others. I understand the pathology behind it. You also won't hear me crooking the info, because I have an axe to grind over someone else's lifestyle.

Two homosexuals who don't have the virus and are in a monogamous relationship have virtually no chance of contracting (barring a fluke like transmission, etc).

The same can't be said any heterosexual who is not in a monogamous relationship with.

Why not just be honest about your hatred of homosexuality as opposed to disingenuously acting like your interest in the matter is out of a public health concern.

 

[mal]

That's not a cure, it's prevention and you should toss in all other forms of risky behavior (i.e. unprotected sex of any type) for consistency. Of course, on the issue of gay sex, I expect such stupidity from you.

Statistically it is VERY Unlikely for (2) Heterosexuals who do not Engage in Sex with Bi-Sexuals or People on the Down Low or who Shoot Drugs to get HIV...

It's almost Nil.

That's the Facts, and the CDC Documents.

Even in their "Heterosexual" Category it's Qualified with that.

Call the CDC Stupid, Asshole.



peace...

"Statistically Very Unlikely" =/= Statistically Impossible.

You won't hear me dispute that certain sexual practices are more risky for contracting HIV than others. I understand the pathology behind it. You also won't hear me crooking the info, because I have an axe to grind over someone else's lifestyle.

Two homosexuals who don't have the virus and are in a monogamous relationship have virtually no chance of contracting (barring a fluke like transmission, etc).

The same can't be said any heterosexual who is not in a monogamous relationship with.

Why not just be honest about your hatred of homosexuality as opposed to disingenuously acting like your interest in the matter is out of a public health concern.

You Gigantic IF doesn't Square with the Data...

For 3 Decades the Homosexual Male Population has Dominated New HIV Cases in the First World and Continues to this Day.

In Cities like San Fran it's 1 in 4... And others are even Worse.

Nationally it's Estimated to be 1 in 10...

For Heterosexuals in the US it's more like 1 in 3,000.

After 30 Years.

The Sex they Chose to have is Inherently Unsafe, even BEFORE AIDS.

Now it is Spreading in the Ethnic Minority Communities to Heterosexual Women because Homosexuals can't be "Out" in those Communites so they Keep Women for Status.

Monogamy and the Homosexual Male on Average is a Fairy Tale... Excuse the Pun.



peace...

 

[geauxtohell]

You Gigantic IF doesn't Square with the Data...

For 3 Decades the Homosexual Male Population has Dominated New HIV Cases in the First World and Continues to this Day.

In Cities like San Fran it's 1 in 4... And others are even Worse.

Nationally it's Estimated to be 1 in 10...

For Heterosexuals in the US it's more like 1 in 3,000.

After 30 Years.

The Sex they Chose to have is Inherently Unsafe, even BEFORE AIDS.

Now it is Spreading in the Ethnic Minority Communities to Heterosexual Women because Homosexuals can't be "Out" in those Communites so they Keep Women for Status.

Monogamy and the Homosexual Male on Average is a Fairy Tale... Excuse the Pun.

Like I said, I am not interested in turning the pathological basis of disease into a social commentary. I am only concerned with the facts of the matter.

You can debate the merits of the ability of homosexual to be monogamous with someone who gives a fuck. (Since you aren't a homosexual male, the rest of us are left to wonder why you do give a fuck.)

As it stands, my statement stands.

Regardless of lifestyle, people in monogamous relationships are at little to no risk compared to the opposite.

So this popular delusion (that was prevalent in the 80s and contributed to the spread of the disease) that HIV is a "gay man's disease" is utter bullshit.

The virus doesn't care what the gender or sexual orientation is of the owner of the CD 4 cell it's about to infect.

 

[mal]

You Gigantic IF doesn't Square with the Data...

For 3 Decades the Homosexual Male Population has Dominated New HIV Cases in the First World and Continues to this Day.

In Cities like San Fran it's 1 in 4... And others are even Worse.

Nationally it's Estimated to be 1 in 10...

For Heterosexuals in the US it's more like 1 in 3,000.

After 30 Years.

The Sex they Chose to have is Inherently Unsafe, even BEFORE AIDS.

Now it is Spreading in the Ethnic Minority Communities to Heterosexual Women because Homosexuals can't be "Out" in those Communites so they Keep Women for Status.

Monogamy and the Homosexual Male on Average is a Fairy Tale... Excuse the Pun.

Like I said, I am not interested in turning the pathological basis of disease into a social commentary. I am only concerned with the facts of the matter.

You can debate the merits of the ability of homosexual to be monogamous with someone who gives a fuck. (Since you aren't a homosexual male, the rest of us are left to wonder why you do give a fuck.)

As it stands, my statement stands.

Regardless of lifestyle, people in monogamous relationships are at little to no risk compared to the opposite.

So this popular delusion (that was prevalent in the 80s and contributed to the spread of the disease) that HIV is a "gay man's disease" is utter bullshit.

The virus doesn't care what the gender or sexual orientation is of the owner of the CD 4 cell it's about to infect.

Then why after 30 Years is New HIV Transmission 75% Homosexual Male and Homosexual Male IV Drug Users?...

And even with the Heterosexual Trasmission, the CDC Qualifies it with those who are having Sex with Men who have Sex with Men and IV Drug Users...

This Disease is Overwhelmingly a Homosexual Male thing in the First World, GENERATIONS in now.

Ignoring and or Denying this Fact is Costing the Homosexual Community Lives.

Acting like there is "Safe Sex" for Homosexuals is Killing them, but then again Liberals Assuming that Minorities "can't" has cost them Generations of Moving Foward in Society.

If I Hated Homosexuals, I would Applaud it and Insist they do More of it.

I don't...



peace...

 

[beowolfe]

The downside? It only works on lipid-enveloped viruses.

.

In layman's terms, that means what, as far as application and effectiveness are concerned?

I'm afraid that this is about as 'dumbed downed' as it gets....

The lipid bilayer is a thin membrane made of two layers of lipid molecules. These membranes are flat sheets that form a continuous barrier around cells. The cell membrane of almost all living organisms and many viruses are made of a lipid bilayer, as are the membranes surrounding the cell nucleus and other sub-cellular structures. The lipid bilayer is the barrier that keeps ions, proteins and other molecules where they are needed and prevents them from diffusing into areas where they should not be. Lipid bilayers are ideally suited to this role because, even though they are only a few nanometers thick, they are impermeable to most water-soluble (hydrophilic) molecules. Bilayers are particularly impermeable to ions, which allows cells to regulate salt concentrations and pH by pumping ions across their membranes using proteins called ion pumps.

 

[beowolfe]

Statistically it is VERY Unlikely for (2) Heterosexuals who do not Engage in Sex with Bi-Sexuals or People on the Down Low or who Shoot Drugs to get HIV...

It's almost Nil.

That's the Facts, and the CDC Documents.

Even in their "Heterosexual" Category it's Qualified with that.

Call the CDC Stupid, Asshole.



peace...

"Statistically Very Unlikely" =/= Statistically Impossible.

You won't hear me dispute that certain sexual practices are more risky for contracting HIV than others. I understand the pathology behind it. You also won't hear me crooking the info, because I have an axe to grind over someone else's lifestyle.

Two homosexuals who don't have the virus and are in a monogamous relationship have virtually no chance of contracting (barring a fluke like transmission, etc).

The same can't be said any heterosexual who is not in a monogamous relationship with.

Why not just be honest about your hatred of homosexuality as opposed to disingenuously acting like your interest in the matter is out of a public health concern.

You Gigantic IF doesn't Square with the Data...

For 3 Decades the Homosexual Male Population has Dominated New HIV Cases in the First World and Continues to this Day.

In Cities like San Fran it's 1 in 4... And others are even Worse.

Nationally it's Estimated to be 1 in 10...

For Heterosexuals in the US it's more like 1 in 3,000.

After 30 Years.

The Sex they Chose to have is Inherently Unsafe, even BEFORE AIDS.

Now it is Spreading in the Ethnic Minority Communities to Heterosexual Women because Homosexuals can't be "Out" in those Communites so they Keep Women for Status.

Monogamy and the Homosexual Male on Average is a Fairy Tale... Excuse the Pun.



peace...

Can you explain how it was inherently unsafe before aids?

 

[beowolfe]

You Gigantic IF doesn't Square with the Data...

For 3 Decades the Homosexual Male Population has Dominated New HIV Cases in the First World and Continues to this Day.

In Cities like San Fran it's 1 in 4... And others are even Worse.

Nationally it's Estimated to be 1 in 10...

For Heterosexuals in the US it's more like 1 in 3,000.

After 30 Years.

The Sex they Chose to have is Inherently Unsafe, even BEFORE AIDS.

Now it is Spreading in the Ethnic Minority Communities to Heterosexual Women because Homosexuals can't be "Out" in those Communites so they Keep Women for Status.

Monogamy and the Homosexual Male on Average is a Fairy Tale... Excuse the Pun.

Like I said, I am not interested in turning the pathological basis of disease into a social commentary. I am only concerned with the facts of the matter.

You can debate the merits of the ability of homosexual to be monogamous with someone who gives a fuck. (Since you aren't a homosexual male, the rest of us are left to wonder why you do give a fuck.)

As it stands, my statement stands.

Regardless of lifestyle, people in monogamous relationships are at little to no risk compared to the opposite.

So this popular delusion (that was prevalent in the 80s and contributed to the spread of the disease) that HIV is a "gay man's disease" is utter bullshit.

The virus doesn't care what the gender or sexual orientation is of the owner of the CD 4 cell it's about to infect.

Then why after 30 Years is New HIV Transmission 75% Homosexual Male and Homosexual Male IV Drug Users?...

And even with the Heterosexual Trasmission, the CDC Qualifies it with those who are having Sex with Men who have Sex with Men and IV Drug Users...

This Disease is Overwhelmingly a Homosexual Male thing in the First World, GENERATIONS in now.

Ignoring and or Denying this Fact is Costing the Homosexual Community Lives.

Acting like there is "Safe Sex" for Homosexuals is Killing them, but then again Liberals Assuming that Minorities "can't" has cost them Generations of Moving Foward in Society.

If I Hated Homosexuals, I would Applaud it and Insist they do More of it.

I don't...



peace...

Actually, your posts remind me of some of the more homophobic republicans who are actually homosexual themselves.

 

[mal]

"Statistically Very Unlikely" =/= Statistically Impossible.

You won't hear me dispute that certain sexual practices are more risky for contracting HIV than others. I understand the pathology behind it. You also won't hear me crooking the info, because I have an axe to grind over someone else's lifestyle.

Two homosexuals who don't have the virus and are in a monogamous relationship have virtually no chance of contracting (barring a fluke like transmission, etc).

The same can't be said any heterosexual who is not in a monogamous relationship with.

Why not just be honest about your hatred of homosexuality as opposed to disingenuously acting like your interest in the matter is out of a public health concern.

You Gigantic IF doesn't Square with the Data...

For 3 Decades the Homosexual Male Population has Dominated New HIV Cases in the First World and Continues to this Day.

In Cities like San Fran it's 1 in 4... And others are even Worse.

Nationally it's Estimated to be 1 in 10...

For Heterosexuals in the US it's more like 1 in 3,000.

After 30 Years.

The Sex they Chose to have is Inherently Unsafe, even BEFORE AIDS.

Now it is Spreading in the Ethnic Minority Communities to Heterosexual Women because Homosexuals can't be "Out" in those Communites so they Keep Women for Status.

Monogamy and the Homosexual Male on Average is a Fairy Tale... Excuse the Pun.



peace...

Can you explain how it was inherently unsafe before aids?

Rates of Infections for other Diseases and Viruses are equally Higher as they are with HIV... And were before AIDS.



peace...