Gene Transfer Immunizes Against Monkey HIV Analog 104
Al writes "Researchers at the University of Pennsylvania have immunized monkeys against the simian immunodeficiency virus, the animal model that is closest to HIV. They did so by shuttling a gene into the monkeys' muscles, making the muscle cells produce antibody-like molecules that work against SIV. With both SIV and HIV, the chameleon-like mutability of the virus's surface changes so quickly that most antibodies made by the immune system are soon rendered ineffective. Philip Johnson and colleagues designed DNA sequences for two antibodies known to be effective against SIV. They used antibody-like molecules, called immunoadhesins, in which the functional part of an antibody is fused with a more stable section of another antibody. The same approach could be used to deliver antibodies that are effective against HIV, but which the body doesn't normally produce."
I don't get it (Score:2, Insightful)
Why not inject the antibody directly ? Why do we need the body to produce it naturally ? If production is the concern, why not inject the gene in bacterias and have then produce the antibody.
There's probably a good reason but I don't know it.
I think (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Don't virii evolve extremely quickly? (Score:5, Insightful)
Some groups are using their own pathetic morality to suppress Africans who otherwis don't know any better.
And how bad would the AIDS epidemic be (in Africa or elsewhere) if people followed "oppressive" Christian teachings like keeping the sex in marriage (I'm no expert on Islam, but as far as I know, they too at least theoretically believe the same)? Granted, even many professed Christians don't follow those teachings, but that doesn't make the principle itself less effective. It would also have a profoundly positive effect on the welfare system, and abortion would very nearly be a non-issue. But nobody wants to talk about it, because we don't want to look like we gave in to those right-wing wackos, depsite the fact that there are huge benefits and nobody has ever shown me an actual drawback to it.
Mock and flame away. I'll pay attention when somebody proposes an actual drawback to monogamy (and no, Sarah Palin's daughter is not one. That again is an example of a problem of not embracing monogamy. I want somebody to point out a disadvantage of monogamy itself).
Re:Don't virii evolve extremely quickly? (Score:5, Insightful)
People have been preaching abstinence and monogamy for thousands of years. I don't see any evidence of it having worked.
People are people. They make mistakes from time to time even if they are trying to follow one of these prescriptive, backward religions.
Combine that with the willful spreading of ignorant, superstitious beliefs in Africa and you have a monumental disaster.
It's time the straight-laced preachers of this world and their arm-chair proponents looked at the reality of human nature and thought of something compatible with it that might help instead of berating and condescending.