In the years 1977-1981 I did "library research" fetching current results on cancer research. The virus that was renamed HIV was a research tool, supposedly kept under safe controls. It was used to deactivate the human immune response in tissue cultures used to test responses of human cells to prospective "chemo" drugs like 5-FU. 5-Fluorouracil. I also ran the most advanced spectrometers that were capable of indicating the conformation of the molecules, which was interpreted in terms of enzyme/substrate mechanics.
Whether anyone wants to believe it or not, HIV is a man-made variant strain. We can shout Huzzah about this new application of a derivative "variant strain", but we can not rule out all possible effects downstream from our brazen tinkering with life.
The kid in this story sure looks like she's about dead from liver and renal failure, and all kinds of other essential organs having been nearly killed by chemo.
Saying "cancer" is a whole bunch of tissue-specific diseases is like saying highly accelerated lead causes thousands of injuries. . . . depending on impact site. Sure every tissue hosting "cancer" has its own characteristics and predispositions for incidence, or even mechanism of initiation, but any cancer gone metastatic can implant in other tissues, and at the cellular level, the term describes unchecked propagation that typically exhausts the patient's capacity to sustain life.
Saying chemo "cures" cancer is like saying death "cures" life. It is a heinous charade on the claim of "medicine". The claim of being a "survivor" at a five-year time point is hollow at best because of the serious and life-long effects of the "cure" which are certain to reduce your remaining life expectancy by at least 50 percent.
Still, the aim of instigating our immune system"s attack on the cancer is our most hopeful line of endeavor which can potentially check the cancer without doing us horrors as chemo/radiation treatments do.
It is still a national shame we do not seriously study "non-traditional" or non-chemo, non-radiation claims/hopes, just as it is a shame that those who sell such "cures" do not even know what scientific methods are, let alone compile records to determine their success or failures. . . .
12-13-2012 11:51 PM
Your saying that HIV is a man made variant of another Virus???
Originally Posted by babe
I'm sorry I've done a lot of research on HIV and how it first spread and the whole entomology of it doesn't suggest it is a man made Virus!!!
Close... The modified HIV virus would enter the T-Cell(HIV's natural host cell) and deliver a set of genes to the T-Cells which now gives them the ability to recognize the cancerous cells and dispose of them!!
Originally Posted by Scat
Why I think this is an amazing article and am fascinated with the inventiveness of the scientist doing this study I am very cautious!!
HIV is a highly evolving non-living organism and if this treatment was given to someone and later on in their life they got the real HIV virus the two viruses could recombine in a T-Cell and create a even deadlier form of HIV!!!
Off topic but here is a theory about how first human contracted AIDS.
So here's what you have to start with. . . .
Originally Posted by Zulu
For the last 23 years, scientists have been trying to peer into that past. Jon Cohen, a correspondent for Science who has written extensively about the virus, compares the work to fossil hunting, using a few precious shreds of evidence to construct a possible history. "Everybody's always looking for certainty. It doesn't exist [in this field]," he says. "In a sense it's all theory."
The origin of AIDS and HIV has puzzled scientists ever since the illness first came to light in the early 1980s. For over twenty years it has been the subject of fierce debate and the cause of countless arguments, with everything from a promiscuous flight attendant to a suspect vaccine programme being blamed. So what is the truth? Just where did AIDS come from?
The first recognised cases of AIDS occurred in the USA in the early 1980s (more about this period can be found on our History of AIDS page). A number of gay men in New York and California suddenly began to develop rare opportunistic infections and cancers that seemed stubbornly resistant to any treatment. At this time, AIDS did not yet have a name, but it quickly became obvious that all the men were suffering from a common syndrome.
The discovery of HIV, the Human Immunodeficiency Virus, was made soon after. While some were initially resistant to acknowledge the connection (and indeed some remain so today), there is now clear evidence to prove that HIV causes AIDS. So, in order to find the source of AIDS, it is necessary to look for the origin of HIV, and find out how, when and where HIV first began to cause disease in humans.
And perhaps if you're an expert on the methods of research and all, you'll learn to read what people say before you just do the whole diss. . . . . I said I collected peer-reviewed articles on cancer research in the 1977-1981 years that related to the use of already laboratory-modified viral strains that were supposedly handled responsibly by scientists to deactivate the immune response of human cells in tissue cultures where there was a need to investigate the efficacy of various proposed cancer chemotherapy agents. . . . . trying to eliminate one of the variables in the equation only made sense. . . . then. . . .
that was years before anyone had AIDS. . . .
And c'mon. . . . three variants that jumped across species line at the same time, within a few years. . . . in the early eighties. . . .
Any of you evolutionary experts out there want to discuss the natural likelihood of that??????
Hmmm... are you saying that "intelligent design" was involved?
Originally Posted by babe
Just to recap, my point in comment in this thread has more to do with the possibilities of research gone wrong in unforeseen ways. The use of HIV as a tool to take control of a patient's immune system and then turn it on against a patient's cancer. . . . knowing or believing HIV to a rapidly-adapting/changing virus. . . a retrovirus at that. . . .is not my idea of a "safe" method.
knowing that it's history involves twice jumping across species lines, from one primate to another. . . .somehow. . . .
My experience in reading about research done thirty five years ago with immunodeficiency retrovirus used to "control" experiments with potential chemotherapy drugs. . . . might just be a haunting question about how the disease got associated with humans, possibly from strains we used in labs. . . .
but if any of you "experts" out there want something to chew on, here's a study that attempted to "date" the time of divergence of various related viral strains. . . . that might be in the phylogeny of HIV:
Great strides have been made in understanding the evolutionary history of simian immunodeficiency virus (SIV) and the zoonoses that gave rise to HIV-1 and HIV-2. What remains unknown is how long these SIVs had been circulating in non-human primates before the transmissions to humans. Here, we use relaxed molecular clock dating techniques to estimate the time of most recent common ancestor for the SIVs infecting chimpanzees and sooty mangabeys, the reservoirs of HIV-1 and HIV-2, respectively. The date of the most recent common ancestor of SIV in chimpanzees is estimated to be 1492 (1266–1685), and the date in sooty mangabeys is estimated to be 1809 (1729–1875). Notably, we demonstrate that SIV sequences sampled from sooty mangabeys possess sufficient clock-like signal to calibrate a molecular clock; despite the differences in host biology and viral dynamics, the rate of evolution of SIV in sooty mangabeys is indistinguishable from that of its human counterpart, HIV-2. We also estimate the ages of the HIV-2 human-to-human transmissible lineages and provide the first age estimate for HIV-1 group N at 1963 (1948–1977). Comparisons between the SIV most recent common ancestor dates and those of the HIV lineages suggest a difference on the order of only hundreds of years. Our results suggest either that SIV is a surprisingly young lentiviral lineage or that SIV and, perhaps, HIV dating estimates are seriously compromised by unaccounted-for biases
my point might go more towards questioning the intelligence of human genetic scientists. . . . . or their virtue. . . .
Originally Posted by Scat
You didn't have to have all three strains evolve in the early 80's that's only when the first cases in a developed country showed up!!
Everything I've read about the origins of HIV put it evolving from SIV( simian immunodeficiency virus),which infects such primates as sooty mangabeys and chimpanzees, in humans in Africa who would have contact with these primates!!
When the first cases of the unknown disease came about in the US amoung gay males all the patients had either gone to Haitti or slept with some one who had vacationed there in the past 10 years. At this time Haitti was a popular place for gay men to vacation!! It is believed that they were infected with HIV from the African Haitians they slept with that received the disease from their ancestors that were brought over by the slave trades!!