Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Medicine Science

Study: HIV Becoming Less Deadly, Less Infectious 172

Posted by Soulskill from the winning-the-long-game dept.
An anonymous reader writes: A new study (abstract) from Oxford University shows HIV is weakening as it evolves in response to our immune system. When the virus encounters somebody with a particularly strong immune system, it sacrifices efficiency in replication to gradually overcome those defenses. This causes it to take more time for the infection to cause AIDS. Professor Philip Goulder said, "It is quite striking. You can see the ability to replicate is 10% lower in Botswana than South Africa and that's quite exciting. We are observing evolution happening in front of us and it is surprising how quickly the process is happening. The virus is slowing down in its ability to cause disease and that will help contribute to elimination." Goulder added that the average time from infection to the onset of AIDS has increased by 25% over the past 10 years.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Study: HIV Becoming Less Deadly, Less Infectious More

Study: HIV Becoming Less Deadly, Less Infectious

Comments Filter:

  • Not necessarily good news (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    It seems on it's way to becoming a more permanent and established disease.

    • Then again, maybe it _is_ good news. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by AltGrendel ( 175092 ) <ag-slashdot.exit0@us> on Tuesday December 02, 2014 @03:06PM (#48509019) Homepage
      From TFA: "Some virologists suggest the virus may eventually become "almost harmless" as it continues to evolve." Yes, I realize the the article says "Some" and "almost" but still I'd rather it be like dealing with a common cold than a full shutdown of my immune system.

      • Re:Then again, maybe it _is_ good news. (Score:4, Insightful)

        by bunratty ( 545641 ) on Tuesday December 02, 2014 @03:16PM (#48509103)
        Mostly harmless!?

      • Re:Then again, maybe it _is_ good news. (Score:5, Interesting)

        by VitrosChemistryAnaly ( 616952 ) on Tuesday December 02, 2014 @03:50PM (#48509453) Journal
        What we'd have then is a situation like SIV in which the virus doesn't cause disease in "natural" host organisms (such as chimpanzees) because the host can control virus replication. These people actually already exist and they're called "elite controllers". They are infected with HIV (for many, many years), but their immune system keeps the virus to almost undetectable levels. For them, HIV is harmless.

        I work in immunology and the coevolution of host and virus to the point where it is harmless would be a Good Thing (TM).

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by mc6809e ( 214243 )

          I work in immunology and the coevolution of host and virus to the point where it is harmless would be a Good Thing (TM).

          Perhaps good in the long run, but coevolution implies the evolution of the host, too, and that requires an increase, at least temporarily, in the number of dead humans (that pesky selection part of evolution).

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by SumDog ( 466607 )

          I know we've found some of these "elite controllers" in the form of children; families who adopted kids in the late 80s and early 90s. The drugs were so hard on kids that many would get sick immediately. So you you give the kids drugs so they can live until 15 or don't and they live to be 8 (but happier for a bit).

          Some parents chose to take their kids off the drugs..and some of those kids are in their late 20s today! But many of them aren't.

          My question: how do you find these cases in adults? You can't ethi

          • My question: how do you find these cases in adults? You can't ethically give someone a placebo for 5 years! Are these people who the point of infection can be narrowed down to an instance and who discover they have HIV 6+ years after the fact?

            I'm not the clinician in my lab, but here's the way that I understand it works:
            After a person tests positive for HIV, their CD4+ T-cell count is monitored. Once that count goes below a certain level they are placed on anti-retroviral therapy. Elite controllers are those whose CD4+ T-cell count never goes down and have nearly undetectable viral loads. For those who don't know, HIV tests actually test whether your body is making antibodies against HIV and don't directly measure viral load.

      • "Some virologists suggest the virus may eventually become "almost harmless" as it continues to evolve"

        It would be harmless if the virus did not encode for a homologue of the human lipid peroxidase inhibitor glutathione peroxidase. See Keshen's disease (China).

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K... [wikipedia.org]

        What they say might be happening but what *also* would explain that (and they did not check, a simple serum selenium test would differentiate) is:

        Bloomberg news 2013:
        "... selenium for two years were able to delay their

      • From TFA: "Some virologists suggest the virus may eventually become "almost harmless" as it continues to evolve."

        Yes, I realize the the article says "Some" and "almost" but still I'd rather it be like dealing with a common cold than a full shutdown of my immune system.

        "May" and "almost harmless" not in my lifetime.

        Ask any person that suffers shingles, virus populations in West Africa may evolve a less lethal
        variety of Ebola... but I am not going to bet on it. Singles hides in nerve tissue and can attack
        60 years after infection..... that is like three generations.

        At best we might see a Cowpox/Smallpox pair but as world history shows Cowpox does
        not visit a population far and wide enough to make Smallpox go away. Smallpox is still
        a global risk. The fact that we ha

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by rs79 ( 71822 )

          "Ask any person that suffers shingles, virus populations in West Africa may evolve a less lethal variety of Ebola... but I am not going to bet on it."

          Actually the lethal strains of EBOV are a mutation of the Asian strain we know as "Reston" which is harmless. It does not encode for selenium.

          When the virus made it to the selenium rich soils of West Africa it mutated picking up the encoding for a homologue of the human selenoenzyme glutathione peroxidase (GPx3) which makes it lethal. See: http://orthomolecu [orthomolecular.org]

    • It seems on it's way to becoming a more permanent and established disease.

      Not really. Imagine some sipervirus, that kills within minutes, and one for which there is no possible defense, and adapts constantly, every mutation being equally deadly.

      If this happens, eventually the virus itself goes extinct, because there are no more humans to transmit the virus. The virus's lethality caused it to commit suicide.

      Now something like AIDS, where people who live longer can presumably infect more people, than the strains that kill quickly, will indeed end up becoming more widespread.

      • If this happens, eventually the virus itself goes extinct, because there are no more humans to transmit the virus. The virus's lethality caused it to commit suicide.

        'In the infection zone' at that, it doesn't mean that humans are extinct either. Ebola, for example, is so deadly that it tends to burn itself out, and it takes most of a month to kill you.

        The recent outbreak has been noted to be one of the less lethal strains seen...

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Baki ( 72515 )

      I read that we have lot of old retro-virus material in our DNA. Maybe this is how it went before, we get into a kind of symbiosis with the virus until it somehow merges into our DNA permanently? I'm not a microbiologist though, just guessing.

      In fact, the (my) first google hit for symbiosis retrovirus was http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm... [nih.gov], which superficially seems to think in the same direction w.r.t. past.

  • HIV, now friendlier than ever! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 02, 2014 @03:11PM (#48509067)

    Comcast is really excited. If HIV can get some positive press, they may have some hope, too.

  • Raining on the parade (Score:4, Interesting)

    by javilon ( 99157 ) on Tuesday December 02, 2014 @03:16PM (#48509115) Homepage

    I hate to say this, but if the virus is changing in that direction, it means it is more effective at infecting people that way. That's the way evolution works.

    I guess if the virus is low key for a long time, it is detected later and retrovirals are started later, so it gets more chances to infect someone. Also, if the virus damages the body less, or the damage is slowwer, there are more chances it is not treated, so again it gets more chances to infect.

    While it is good news that VIH is becoming less deadly, I wouldn't like it to become a chronic infection slowly debilitating and eventually killing its hosts. That would cause it not to be treated at all in poor countries.

    • But over the long term, dead is still dead. So if it takes an extra 10 years to kill you ...

      When the virus encounters somebody with a particularly strong immune system, it sacrifices efficiency in replication to gradually overcome those defenses.

      Sounds more like the ones that succeed will be super-bugs, same as every other infectious disease that we're combating that has developed resistance.

      • Re:Raining on the parade (Score:5, Insightful)

        by CrankyFool ( 680025 ) on Tuesday December 02, 2014 @03:39PM (#48509331)

        Over the long term, you're going to die anyway.

        If HIV becomes the sort of virus that basically will take decades and decades to kill you (with lots of medicine, it pretty much is already that, except that in a lot of countries you don't get "lots of medicine"), then its relevance to your lifespan decreases.

        There's a form of prostate cancer that develops so slowly that if you're old enough when you get it, it's considered quite reasonable to not even treat it, but rather monitor it to make sure it continues to develop slowly.

        • Over the long term, you're going to die anyway.

          Bender: Dying sucks butt! How do you living beings cope with mortality?
          Turanga Leela: Violent outbursts.
          Amy Wong: General sluttiness.
          Philip J. Fry: Thanks to denial, I'm immortal.

          • Bender: Dying sucks butt! How do you living beings cope with mortality?

            The same Bender that tried to commit suicide in the first episode...

        • Over the long term, you're going to die anyway.

          Nuh Uh! I vecame vegan, don't eat any fat or salt, take 10 different maintenance drugs every day, and live in a safe room except when I go to the doctors. I'm gonna live 4-evah!

          • Nuh Uh! I vecame vegan, don't eat any fat or salt, take 10 different maintenance drugs every day, and live in a safe room except when I go to the doctors. I'm gonna live 4-evah!

            Do you also have a fixie? If so, $5 says you're a software engineer at a Bay Area startup.

            • Nuh Uh! I vecame vegan, don't eat any fat or salt, take 10 different maintenance drugs every day, and live in a safe room except when I go to the doctors. I'm gonna live 4-evah!

              Do you also have a fixie? If so, $5 says you're a software engineer at a Bay Area startup.

              Nope, just a sarcstic ass who thinks too many people think they are going to live forever.

          • There is a Marillion song just about this ;-)

            Well, I gave up sugar and I gave up spice
            I gave up everything that feels all right
            'Cause I feel that these addictions
            Are a chain you have to sever
            I'm addicted to believing that I'm going to live forever

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by TheCarp ( 96830 )

          > There's a form of prostate cancer that develops so slowly that if you're old enough when you get it, it's
          > considered quite reasonable to not even treat it, but rather monitor it to make sure it continues to develop slowly.

          Actually I ran into this concept through my wife's family: her grandfather recently developed leukemia and the doctors said it wasn't a cause for concern because at his age they expect it to progress slowly enough that something else is almost certainly going to kill him first.

          Tho

        • You're talking about a natural response to a disease. The natural response to AIDS is to eventually die. Right now we can put that date off, but that's it. AIDS isn't going to become like the common cold for a long, long time - and that would require natural selection to kill off all those who are susceptible to AIDS in the meantime. No thanks, Let's concentrate on finding a cure instead of letting the grim reaper kill off the weak +99% of the population.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by u38cg ( 607297 )
          Yeah, we mostly call that prostate cancer. Most (old) men die with a prostate cancer in situ.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by vux984 ( 928602 )

      I hate to say this, but if the virus is changing in that direction, it means it is more effective at infecting people that way. That's the way evolution works.

      Yes, its more effective at surviving if it doesn't harm its hosts.

      While it is good news that VIH is becoming less deadly, I wouldn't like it to become a chronic infection slowly debilitating and eventually killing its hosts. That would cause it not to be treated at all in poor countries.

      The less harmful it becomes the better it survives. If it becomes

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by fermion ( 181285 )
      Also, infection rates are going up, particularly young teens and early adults,particularly men. HIV may now be a less virulent disease that is chronic instead of fatal, but is still a huge short term problem. I don't know if kids think there is less risk, or parent's are more conservative and not teaching safe sex, but something is going to have to change short term if the epidemic is not going to grow.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by hey! ( 33014 )

      Well, on the flip of the flip side, the virus doesn't actually "mean" us harm. Some viruses reach a kind of commensalism with their host population where they do not do significant harm to that population, they more or less hitch a ride.

  • Contribute to Elimination? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by tomxor ( 2379126 ) on Tuesday December 02, 2014 @03:21PM (#48509157)

    "The virus is slowing down in its ability to cause disease and that will help contribute to elimination."

    Not sure if this is incorrectly phrased or i'm incorrect in my understanding of viral evolution... The virus has evolved to slow down the process of causing disease, surely this is because it is advantageous to the continuation of this virus, if the host dies too quickly they are less likely to pass on the virus. So how does this contribute to eliminating the virus? is it not the opposite? Longer infected lifespan == Greater chance of transmission.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Richy_T ( 111409 )

      That was my first thought too. However, it is up against an opponent that is able to employ strategy and tactics so *shrug*

    • Re:Contribute to Elimination? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Registered Coward v2 ( 447531 ) on Tuesday December 02, 2014 @03:42PM (#48509377)

      "The virus is slowing down in its ability to cause disease and that will help contribute to elimination."

      Not sure if this is incorrectly phrased or i'm incorrect in my understanding of viral evolution... The virus has evolved to slow down the process of causing disease, surely this is because it is advantageous to the continuation of this virus, if the host dies too quickly they are less likely to pass on the virus. So how does this contribute to eliminating the virus? is it not the opposite? Longer infected lifespan == Greater chance of transmission.

      What the article says is the virus, as it adapts to a strong immune system weakens it's ability to replicate; thus slowing down the onset of the disease in the host. If another person is infected by this weaker virus, the new infection results in an even weaker virus as it tries to adapt to the host. In essence, each successive infection results in a virus less able to replicate and thus result in a slower and slower onset of AIDs. Over time, the virus may lose it's ability to replicate fast enough to cause AIDs and merely be another infection for the body to deal with.

      • At which point, it becomes really evolutionarily successful: able to infect all the hosts it can get to without this pesky business of them dying off, or feeling they have to avoid possible transmission methods.

    • Look at it from a risk management point of view. Risk management considers it "no risk" if either the impact is zero (if it rains it's very likely that your car will get wet but getting wet has no negative impact on its functionality, so there is no need to protect it from rain) or if the chance of occurring is zero (if the moon fell on your head it would be devastating, but it just can't happen).

      So if there is a great chance of transmission while the impact is negligible (not saying it is, but it's alleged

  • How is this good? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by MobyDisk ( 75490 ) on Tuesday December 02, 2014 @03:24PM (#48509183) Homepage

    One of the most nasty things a disease can do is to slowly replicate without causing symptoms. These long incubation periods are why Ebola, Tuberculosis, and Rabies are so dangerous. It makes them hard to detect and gives the host time to travel and potentially infect others without either party knowing. By the time the symptoms manifest it is often too late. By contrast, a disease that produces symptoms immediately is easily detectable and the host seeks treatment. If it is really really fast, they die before they can pass it on, and such diseases quickly eradicate themselves.

    I don't look forward to a world where AIDS only manifests after 30 years, but everyone has it.

    • One of the most nasty things a disease can do is to slowly replicate without causing symptoms. These long incubation periods are why Ebola, Tuberculosis, and Rabies are so dangerous. It makes them hard to detect and gives the host time to travel and potentially infect others without either party knowing. By the time the symptoms manifest it is often too late. By contrast, a disease that produces symptoms immediately is easily detectable and the host seeks treatment. If it is really really fast, they die before they can pass it on, and such diseases quickly eradicate themselves.

      I don't look forward to a world where AIDS only manifests after 30 years, but everyone has it.

      Except in this case, slow replication means the host never gets sick enough to die; they merely live with an infection and may exhibit no symptoms of the disease. They remain contagious but the disease no longer progresses to full blown AIDs.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      It becomes more like, say, Herpes: life long infection that is not fatal.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by silfen ( 3720385 )

      I don't look forward to a world where AIDS only manifests after 30 years, but everyone has it.

      You mean like HPV, HSV, EBV, CMV, and hundreds of other viruses large parts of the population carry and live with? Not to mention all the bacteria and parasites that live inside and on us? One more persistent virus that doesn't cause disease in most people isn't going to make a hell of a lot of difference. HIV should hurry up and evolve already.

      By contrast, a disease that produces symptoms immediately is easily det

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by MobyDisk ( 75490 )

        If we are sticking with my example, it does cause disease - it kills you in 30 years. I don't like that. Everyone is hoping it approaches 90 years, 100 years - well, good luck with that. I'd rather just stop the disease entirely since it is totally preventable.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by silfen ( 3720385 )

          Your example isn't reasonable. As a virus evolves, disease doesn't just take longer to manifest itself, it also becomes milder in the process and manifests in fewer people. That's why I gave the examples of those other viruses; they are a roadmap of how HIV will likely evolve. And yes, that is a good thing.

          Saying "you'd rather stop" is a false dichotomy: you don't have the choice. In addition, wasting resources on viruses that cause less serious and less frequent disease means people suffer and die unnecess

    • Doesn't Ebola only transmit when symptoms present themselves. If John Smith gets infected with Ebola and you are around him, you aren't in any danger. Once he shows symptoms though, he can transmit Ebola to someone else.

      There are other viruses, though, that are the exact opposite. Once symptoms show, they are beyond the "spread far and wide" phase.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Yaotzin ( 827566 )

        As far as I know, that is more or less correct. Incubation time for ebola is 2-21 days during which you are not infectious. After that (appearance of symptoms) the risk of infection is manifested and remains an issue for as long as the virus is present in bodily fluids. Men can remain infectious for about 7 weeks as the seminal fluid acts as a reservoir for the virus. In summary, if John Smith hasn't had any symptoms there is no risk but I wouldn't associate too closely with him for a month or three if he

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by MobyDisk ( 75490 )

        This is what the press has been saying but it isn't 100% accurate. One is less likely to infect, but it is still infectious. Naturally, a person coughing and sweating profusely is excreting more bodily fluids than someone who is asymptomatic. But they are also more likely to travel and go into work, thus exposing people. It is a double-edged sword.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by xigxag ( 167441 )

      AIDS already has a ridiculously long latency period, about 10 years. Far longer than incubation periods of Ebola (2-3 weeks), TB (10 weeks) and rabies (usually around 8 weeks). So it's already hard to detect externally, unless you happen to notice the initial rash and fever symptoms. Stretching out the latency period further won't infect more people, just add more years to people's lives and make it easier to manage the viral load with less medication.

    • One of the most nasty things a disease can do is to slowly replicate without causing symptoms. These long incubation periods are why Ebola, Tuberculosis, and Rabies are so dangerous. ......snip....

      It is necessary to add some measures of infection and transmission (transmissibility). If a person is infectious for a long period
      with no or difficult to detect symptoms the world has a massive problem if the end result is kin to the final week or two of a hemorrhagic
      fever like Ebola.

      Transmissibility i.e. the evolutions of a virus ability to infect others is missing in the original article.
      A virus could become benign OR it could combine the long incubation of HIV and Ebola but acquire the
      rapid transmis

  • Oh I've seen this before... (Score:3)

    by TFlan91 ( 2615727 ) on Tuesday December 02, 2014 @03:33PM (#48509263)

    Just went on a family vacation where my little brothers were playing a game on their iDevices.

    The game - not giving it any specific advertisement - revolves around you "building" a disease meant to kill everyone on Earth. It gives you 3 categories on how the disease is perceived; Infectivity, Severity, and Lethality.

    As Severity increases, the world becomes aware of the disease, the higher the severity the greater the focus the world has on finding a cure. So to combat this, you "devolve" traits that increase severity until the world doesn't care anymore or cares less than you want it to so infection continues.

    Keeping on this fine line of severity until everyone in the world is infected, and then you "evolve" traits that kills everyone within minutes, winning you the game.

    It seems HIV is taking a page out this games strategy book and sayin "Hey! Don't look at me, I won't kill you for another 20 years! Look at that guy over there first! (heuheuheuheu)".

    • Keeping on this fine line of severity until everyone in the world is infected, and then you "evolve" traits that kills everyone within minutes, winning you the game.

      It seems HIV is taking a page out this games strategy book and sayin "Hey! Don't look at me, I won't kill you for another 20 years! Look at that guy over there first! (heuheuheuheu)".

      Too bad evolution doesn't work that way. This game seems to think that viruses think, and that they live forever, all mutate at once, and commit suicide as a goal.

      hint: if all humans are dead, any virus that requires humans dies with them.

    • I played a Flash game like this years ago. (It was called Pandemic. I believe there's a tabletop game with the same name, but I don't know whether they are related.) I'd keep mortality at the lowest amount possible and ramp up infectivity as much as possible. Then, when everyone was infected, I'd make my virus super-lethal. Everyone in the world was dead in a matter of days. Fun times. Completely unrealistic as far as evolution is concerned, but still fun.

      • What you describe doesn't sound anything like the tabletop game.

        (Not knocking either game, I like the tabletop game)

        T

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Nemyst ( 1383049 )
      Obviously the problem with Plague Inc. (and Pandemic before that) is that it's a videogame. Hint: a virus does not spontaneously and simultaneously evolve in all of its hosts, as it does in the game. It also does not specifically target host death, because that is detrimental to its spread and is thus selected against.

  • All parasites aspire to be symbiotic (Score:5, Informative)

    by jd.schmidt ( 919212 ) on Tuesday December 02, 2014 @03:33PM (#48509267)
    Strange but true, at the end of the day all parasites are better off when they become symbiotic. There is no advantage to killing off your free meal, in fact your are better off lending a hand.

    • Re:All parasites aspire to be symbiotic (Score:4, Informative)

      by Registered Coward v2 ( 447531 ) on Tuesday December 02, 2014 @03:46PM (#48509417)

      Strange but true, at the end of the day all parasites are better off when they become symbiotic. There is no advantage to killing off your free meal, in fact your are better off lending a hand.

      depends on the parasite's life cycle. If they can only live within the host then become symbiotic, or at least not causing illness and death, is beneficial. If they only need the host for one part of their life cycle, such as wasps that use insects as a source of food of rhetoric larva; then killing the host is not a problem.

      • Well, kind off, I admit to overstating my case. None the less even carnivores, which of course eat their prey, can still have a symbiotic relationship with another species. In addition, recent research seems to indicate HIV and Ebola are recent mutations and basically maladapted viruses. Well adapted organisms tend to a beneficial equilibrium.
      • Actually one reason I bring this up is I have wondered if one way to prevent many diseases is to ensure the ecological niche they want to take is already occupied by a much more benign organism. So it would simply be harder for the pest to gain a foothold in the first place. Probably not totally particle with viruses, they are inherently predatory on cells, but maybe bacteria...
      • >> ... then killing the host is not a problem.

        Depends on whose perspective you are talking about there ...

  • Shush... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Flavianoep ( 1404029 ) on Tuesday December 02, 2014 @03:39PM (#48509319)
    Shh! Don't get this kind of information beyond the sphere of well informed people. Some people may think that risky sex behavior becoming less dangerous is a thing.

  • disease progression has a genetic component (Score:5, Interesting)

    by madbrain ( 11432 ) on Tuesday December 02, 2014 @03:59PM (#48509555) Homepage Journal

    I'm somewhat skeptical here. From my very small n=2 study, my husband and myself, infected the same year in 2006 (we both had HIV negative and positive tests that same year) with the same virus, as evidenced by genotype mutations test, I can tell you that my husband progressed from HIV to AIDS in less than a year, and had to go on antiretrovirals right away, whereas I didn't need medication for years and chose to remain without them for 4 years. I was in HIV controller studies. There was no change to my immune system on paper. But I was very tired, and I later chose to go on meds anyway. I had to drop out of the studies for this reason. I don't know what came of them. We are of different ethnicity - I am of caucasian and middle eastern descent; while my husband is asian; so our genetic are probably quite different.

    It seems to me that this difference in disease progression between countries may have less to do with the virus itself evolving than it does with people's immune systems and genome evolving and becoming better able to deal with the virus.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Nemyst ( 1383049 )
      You're right it's about genetics, but you got it the wrong way around. What's much more likely is that your immune systems were already very different and the strain you were infected with was more able to defeat your husband's immune system than yours. The virus was therefore more specialized, as the article says.

  • Noob move there, HIV (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    It's way too late in the game to buy down your Visibility at this point. It's bad enough you didn't get Madagascar.

  • Doesn't this suggest things fall apart?

    If so, is the court system going to censor this due to the establishment clause?

    Because I heard somewhere criticism of evolution is basically forcing someone into religion.

  • sigh (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    HIV was never harmful to begin with. I guess this is the way science is going to handle this scandal?

    "Oh, HIV will magically mutate into something harmless! That's why the disease model is wrong! Not because it was a lie all along!"

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by mi ( 197448 )

      "Oh, HIV will magically mutate into something harmless! That's why the disease model is wrong! Not because it was a lie all along!"

      That was my first thought too. Though I don't have enough education to have an opinion on this matter myself, I do know one biologist, who once argued rather adamantly, that there is no (sufficiently) credible evidence of HIV causing AIDS...

      This new study would certainly provide a good way for the established scientists — who sneered and jeered at people expressing simila [wikipedia.org]

  • Outrageous fraud... (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    This is just unbelievable - the same scammers who claimed that a harmless retrovirus was the cause of 20 plus diseases, and different diseases in gay men, women, Africans, non-Africans, etc. are now conveniently telling us that the 'deadly virus' is 'less deadly'...

    LOL. If AIDS was caused by a sexually transmitted virus, then why aren't millions of heterosexual westerners dying every year from it, seeing as all REAL STDs are increasing every year, and have been for decades?

    There is no such thing as an 'HIV

  • And comments like the title are stupid. Most people do not use condoms. Serial "monogamous" people when entering a new relation start doing it without checking the others background. There are some that are more risky prone and do not use them even in one night stands or with their friends with benefits that have probably a couple of other special "friends". Hell, right there in Africa they do not care about condoms, and do not even have the money to buy them (spending half of their monthly salary in condom

Slashdot Top Deals

The biggest difference between time and space is that you can't reuse time. -- Merrick Furst

Close