Musings on ways to get rid AIDS/HIV

[Crossroads Inc.]

The following came from a recent online chat with a friend of mine concerning ways to try and elimnate HIV.

Basically the thing is a pain, no doubt.

Normally must cures or treatments involved immunities or helping the immune system With HIV that’s already screwed over so what to do? Basically we began to think of every little thing, outside of our immune system, that could get HIV. One thing we talked about was just what viruses wore. Self-replicatating protein packs that don't really qualify as living.

Thinking about the 'protein' part, we wondered the following... What if you get some other organism, a bacteria, micro, etc that east, and then change it to ONLY 'eat' HIV.

A virus is protein, it could be a food source, and if you engineered a micro to ignore all other things, it shouldn't interfere with the body itself. Further, the more the micro eats, the more it would reproduce and the quicker it might take out the HIV. Plus, as the Immune system comes back, it should begin taking out the micro till (as we saw it) a balance should form.

The micro keeps HIV in check (not eliminating it but keeping it from becoming harmful) and the renewed Immune system keeps the Micro in check.

Is there anything actually to this? DO I have no idea what I’m talking about? Is current genetic engineering way too far behind to think about something like this?

[drachefly]

(cross-posted from sluggy.net)

Problem is, if you breed a bacterium to ONLY eat HIV, then it is under ENORMOUS selective pressure to mutate so it forgets about that stupid dietary restriction and just chow down.

Anyway, there isn't enough HIV around to make a balanced diet, even for a bacterium.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Why not work on getting the T-killers working better rather than go and make some GM bacteria that eats viruses (somehow) and becomes a potential nightmare?

[Darth Servo]

I'm thinking a special enzyme that explicitly chews up HIV specific proteins. Or temporarily surpress the parts of the immune system it "feeds" upon (T-4 cells) thus slowing its replication while boosting the parts the virus is more indifferent too.

[Ariphaos]

Is there anything actually to this? DO I have no idea what I’m talking about? Is current genetic engineering way too far behind to think about something like this?

There was a Discover magazine article some years back about a drug that was capable of curing herpes or hepatitis (I forget which). It was rather revolutionary, as it did so by attacking what made a virus a virus, rather than go through the standard hoopla as you're talking about. This is a very promising means of getting rid of HIV, as HIV is such a powerful retrovirus it's rather difficult to assist the immune system with.

Unfortunately, there was a rather serious problem. Mitochondria are such primitive organisms that they too were slain en masse, and although the patients were cured, they died agonizing deaths as their bodies converted to anaerobic production and sufferred serious lactic acid buildup.

There's nothing to say that, with as powerful a retrovirus as HIV is, the above would not end up being a side effect of comprehensive treatment.

[Broomstick]

What? No one has mentioned the politically incorrect and unacceptable method of forcibly testing everyone and isolating all infected individuals until they die off, leaving the uninfected survivors behind?

(The global logistics required alone are impractical, not to mention the moral questions, of course)

[DaveJB]

What? No one has mentioned the politically incorrect and unacceptable method of forcibly testing everyone and isolating all infected individuals until they die off, leaving the uninfected survivors behind?

(The global logistics required alone are impractical, not to mention the moral questions, of course)

Seems not. Neither have they mentioned the equally insane suggestion that AIDS was sent by God to kill all the world's homosexuals, and that by trying to stop it we'd be going against His will.

[wolveraptor]

What? No one has mentioned the politically incorrect and unacceptable method of forcibly testing everyone and isolating all infected individuals until they die off, leaving the uninfected survivors behind?

Christ, if you're going that far, why wait for them to die off? Couldn't you just gas them?

[Talanth]

What? No one has mentioned the politically incorrect and unacceptable method of forcibly testing everyone and isolating all infected individuals until they die off, leaving the uninfected survivors behind?

Yuck! I have a (slightly) better one. A few months back, in the middle of the Bird Flue scare, some friends and I were talking about the posable implications of the virus mutating so it can spread from human to human. One of which was the posable extinction of aids.

At the time the virus was thought to be much more deadly than it's so far turned out to be. We decided that, because of the weakening of the imune system in people with the aids virus, anyone with aids would be almost certain to die once they caught the flue virus. A double-whammy of deadlyness that only the very, very best medicins could ward off (I.E. thoes available to the richest citizens of the richest countries). And even then, if the flue virus was a deadly as people at the time seemed to think, would the drugs be physicly available in such an overstreached health system?

So as you said, no-more carriers = no-more aids. (Also posably = no-more africa, but that's more a matter of logistics)

[Broomstick]

What? No one has mentioned the politically incorrect and unacceptable method of forcibly testing everyone and isolating all infected individuals until they die off, leaving the uninfected survivors behind?

(The global logistics required alone are impractical, not to mention the moral questions, of course)

Seems not. Neither have they mentioned the equally insane suggestion that AIDS was sent by God to kill all the world's homosexuals, and that by trying to stop it we'd be going against His will.

Christ, if you're going that far, why wait for them to die off? Couldn't you just gas them?

I guess ya'll didn't know that that was exactly what Cuba did - if you were found to have the virus you were sent to what were, essentially, quarantine communities. If you leave aside the total restriction on moving freely away from those little outposts, the rest of it was quite humane: they were provided housing, food, medical care, etc. and even visits from friends and family. You just couldn't leave. Ever. Not too different from what everyone used to do to lepers. For all I know these things are still up and running, although I expect the infection rate dropped to almost nil once the quarantines were set up so if they still exist it would be a very, very small number of people.

Of course, Cuba is an island, with an autocratic government and a well set-up and run government health service everyone is accustomed to using. Not that many folks to screen, and the goverment can get away with, essentially, imprisoning the ill without the citizens getting too uppity and pissed off. For a LOT of reasons this wouldn't work almost anywhere else.

The concept is not insane - it used to be a common "solution" to certain incurable diseases. It also happens to be a "solution" very easy to abuse as well, which is why most folks in the west feel morally queasy about it.

[Broomstick]

At the time the virus was thought to be much more deadly than it's so far turned out to be. We decided that, because of the weakening of the imune system in people with the aids virus, anyone with aids would be almost certain to die once they caught the flue virus. A double-whammy of deadlyness that only the very, very best medicins could ward off (I.E. thoes available to the richest citizens of the richest countries). And even then, if the flue virus was a deadly as people at the time seemed to think, would the drugs be physicly available in such an overstreached health system?

During the flu of 1918 is was, paradoxically, the young and fit who were most likely to die. The death rates among the elderly and young and ill were much the same as during any other flu.

The reason is that the 1918 flu killed by triggering an OVERreaction in the body's immune system, one with often fatal results. The stronger your immune system to more likely you were to die of this side effect. Thus, you had old and sickly people recovering and strapping young men dying by the thousands.

If bird flu kills the same way, then it would not necesarially wipe out all HIV carriers (although those with low immune cell counts could easily succomb to the normal flu effects, or to complications like pneumonia). If bird flu kills by a different mechanism, though, you're "wipe out AIDS" scenario might work.

So as you said, no-more carriers = no-more aids. (Also posably = no-more africa, but that's more a matter of logistics)

Oh, it wouldn't wipe out all of Africa - just cause a massive population crash. A human tragedy in the short term, but long term it might be a positive to reduce the sheer number of people in some areas. A certain percentage of Africans also has at least one genetic mutation that renders the owner immune to HIV - such people would, of course, survive and leave equally immune descendants. The population of Africa would pass through a choke-point, but that's happened before in human history.

[The_Nice_Guy]

I figure we should focus on basic medical hygiene and food welfare, especially in Africa, before spending money on AIDS/HIV drugs.

I'm not budging from my prediction that the hypothesis will be disproven eventually. Another poster already said it:

Anyway, there isn't enough HIV around to make a balanced diet, even for a bacterium.

And I would add, not enough HIV even in terminal AIDS cases. This behavior is so abnormal compared to other infectious diseases that applying Occam's Razor, we should realise something is seriously wrong with the theory if we need so many additional conditions to explain and justify the low titers of the virus.

TWG
PS. Broomstick's story reminded me of an article I read about Soviet bioweapon research, which somehow places the body's immune system into overdrive and kills the target by having the immune system attack the rest of the body's cells. Scary.

[weemadando]

ABC News reported the other day, that in contrast with world HIV/AIDS rates, Australia's infection rate has actualy fucking skyrocketed in the past five years. Hooray for us fucking first-worlders.

[Plekhanov]

The concept is not insane - it used to be a common "solution" to certain incurable diseases. It also happens to be a "solution" very easy to abuse as well, which is why most folks in the west feel morally queasy about it.

In the UK atleast it strikes me that this 'solution' would be more damaging to society than the problem it seeks to solve.

[Broomstick]

True, I think the societal damage would have been bad had we gone down that road. It's really only justifiable in extreme cricumstances.

[The Vodka Vindicator]

Quarentine anyone who tests positives for STDs and wait for them to die off.

[Plekhanov]

Quarentine anyone who tests positives for STDs and wait for them to die off.

Have you any idea what proportion of the humanity is carrying STDs? I suggest you go look up that stat & think again.

[DPDarkPrimus]

Quarentine anyone who tests positives for STDs and wait for them to die off.

Jesus FUCK, not another one.

[Plekhanov]

edit: I would also point out that many stds are curable as such locking people away to die simply for having a disease that's as easy to deal with as Chlamydia would seem something of an over reaction.

[Admiral Johnason]

Quarentine anyone who tests positives for STDs and wait for them to die off.

I believe that means destroying the civil rights of millions all across the planet. Not to mention the cost in money, lives, and facilities to carry out your... proposal.

The only real way to deal with AIDS/HIV is to pour the necessary funding into prevention, education, and a cure.

[Nova Andromeda]

--What if the gov. made a database for STD screening. The database I have in mind would have these features:
-People submit approved STD test results to the database
-All STD tests are paid for by the gov. and strongly incentivized(sp?)
-Keeping your tests "up to date" is strongly encouraged
-All info. is free and easy access for personal use (by net, phone, etc.)
-Any corp. using the data must get expressed permission from the individuals in question and the penalty for breaking this law is very severe

[PeZook]

Want to eradicate AIDS quickly, or without abuse? Well, barring extreme solutions like concentration camps for the diseased, a possible quick solution would be to:

- Introduce mandatory testing for the entire population, as well as anyone entering the country, repeated every five years.

- Introduce punishment (severe, but adequate - a death sentence is ridiculous in this case) for avoiding testing

- Establish a national database containing data like name, surname, date of birth, place of residence and, of course, the status of every single person in the country. Data would be freely accessible to citizens via the internet, phone, mail, or in person. Punishment for copying the data, however, would be severe, and corporations would be barred from access. The idea is to have a database where you could check your partner for the disease even if he refuses to tell you whether he has AIDS or not.

- Bring forth education on the disease, from a young age. Try to make children understand what it is, how horrible it is, how to avoid contracting it. If parents don't want their children to know all that - they can go to hell.

- Intentional spreading of the disease (yes, there are people who do that) would carry punishment equivalent to murder.

Now, I am not delusional. This solution is workable, but only in a dictatorship that has an iron grip on it's populace, and it would be prone to incredible abuse. Not the least which would be: discrimination and ostracism (people learn that their neighbor has AIDS and avoid all contact, businesses don't employ positives, etc.), abuse of power by the government, massive corruption like a market for false test results and things like these.

A realistic method, I think, is to increase education on the subject, give incentives for the population to voluntarily test (or perhaps introduce those mandatory tests - they're not a grave violation of civil liberties. Many countries force all children to be innoculated, after all, and I don't see how that's evil), and punish people who spread AIDS intentionally like murderous fucks that they are.

[DPDarkPrimus]

- Intentional spreading of the disease (yes, there are people who do that) would carry punishment equivalent to murder.

I believe that is already how it works.

[Lord Zentei]

Quarentine anyone who tests positives for STDs and wait for them to die off.

There some major problems with your proposal. And if you want to figure out what it is, try looking up the terms "false posetive" and particularly "false negative".

So: inhumane, destructive and without point.

[Darth Servo]

Quarentine anyone who tests positives for STDs and wait for them to die off.

There some major problems with your proposal. And if you want to figure out what it is, try looking up the terms "false posetive" and particularly "false negative".

So: inhumane, destructive and without point.

Thats where the balancing act comes into play. When does the good of society out-weigh the rights of an individual? Was not quarantine a major component in the eradication of small pox? When we do find a false positive, they could be detained until its determined that the positive was in fact false.

But tell us, what is destructive about this? We aren't talking about putting the people into concentration camps. Quarantine in good hospice facilities where they can be cared for.