AIDS, why so elusive???

this approach is not influenced by the evolution of the virus, since it uses the evolution of the virus as a weapon. Hence no resistance.

does it make sense now?
 
No it still does not, the side effects would be horrible. There is a good likely hood that the treatment is going to kill the person instead of the disease. You have to demonstrate that the virus is affected far more by your mutagen then the patient before your treatment can be considered viable.
 
You assume the side effects are horrible. There might be (and probably are) drugs that affect the polymerase of retro viruses specifically.

Nobody suggested to use a mutagen that works equally well for cellular life and viral life.
 
You assume the side effects are horrible. There might be (and probably are) drugs that affect the polymerase of retro viruses specifically.
Click to expand...
shout2.gif
HELLO! that’s what most AIDS treatment drugs attack already, the reverse transcriptase. Sense humans and in fact almost all life does not have or use reverse transcriptase the drug has no direct side effects.
 
Hello, this treatment would work for any fast evolving virus!

And why isn't aids cured if your drug is so effective?

and this isn't about who has the biggest penis, this is about interesting approaches.

Only in america the best count, in the rest of the world depth counts.
 
Last edited:
Because the virus adapts modifications to the trancriptase that makes the drug less of a ligant. tell me how are you going to make it so that your drug effects the virus rather then the person and then how are you going to counter new strains that have developed resistance to your drug?
 
you don't seem to realize that there is no problem of resistance. You make them evolve faster, you don't try to kill them, but the side effect of faster evolution is that they go extinct.
 
Originally posted by spuriousmonkey
but the side effect of faster evolution is that they go extinct.
Click to expand...

Really? Interesting, i have never heard that before. Does that apply to every species.
 
well, the thing is that AIDS is a relaive 'new' virus (in the human species) and typical of these kind of retroviruses that just jumped to a different host is that they cause more severe effects than in the original host and that they tend to evolve faster. AIDS is one of those viruses which evolutionary speed is on the border of what is survivable. Hence the theory that if you push them slightly over this border the system of 'quasi species going through succesive bottlenecks' loose too much fitness and go extinct.
 
Ahem, CCR5. CD4 is the main receptor that the HIV gp120 binds to, and CCR5 is the co-receptor. A minor unimportant detail, and it's easy to get mixed up. Ignore this post at will.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top