On HIV Re: [extropy-chat] The Hidden Luddite was Re: peak oil debate

The Avantguardian avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com
Sun Sep 11 22:24:57 UTC 2005



--- Brett Paatsch <bpaatsch at bigpond.net.au> wrote:

> Couldn't that be legitimate? You do want existing
> treatments
> to keep working, ie, you do want to overcome the
> drug
> resistance while better solutions, if any, are not
> yet available
> don't you?

Of course it is legitimate. It's essential we keep
existing drugs working while we develop novel ones.
It's only when we become satisfied with this to the
exclusion of researching BETTER avenues, that I have a
problem. 

> 
> >HIV is just 9.8
> > kilobases of RNA that contains 8 genes that encode
> a
> > little over a dozen protein products.
> 
> Okay, so how long has that been known. Not 19 years
> I'd bet you. Not even 9 years, for all the genes,
> I'd still
> be inclined to give you odds without checking ;-). 

Good point. :)
 
> Say you are right. The AIDS patient is only hostage
> until
> a better drug comes along, correct? In the meantime
> he or
> she has a reprieve from dying which is different
> from facing
> a threat to being killed by another person for
> ransom. 

Yes, of course. HIV drug manufacturers are not as
cavalier about human life as are tobacco companies.

> Do you understand how the pharmaceutical development
> pipeline works from a commercialisation standpoint? 

Since it is a long-term career interest of mine, I
have a second hand appreciation for its complexity.
Your points are valid. It is difficult working with
human tissues for purposes of research. Five years is
relatively short-time span for this sort of thing. The
reported toxicity of the new drugs was why I was
disappointed.


> You *think* you've identified a computer model of a 
> protease inhibitor for an essential protein? 
> 
> What would it take to prove that you have?

Well the first thing that needs to be done is that I
learn more organic chemistry techniques or have a good
organic chemist assist me. Its much easier to push
atoms around on a computer than in meat space.


 Does your
> 
> HIV protein have an equivalent in an animal virus?
> If so
> do you know that they aren't even now trying to 
> demonstrate in an animal model what you only have 
> on computer?

The lack of a convenient animal model in HIV research
has always been a frustrating problem. The best are
macques with SIV although it is not a perfect system.
As far as whether "they" are onto my alleged HIV
Achilles Heel, if "they" are U.S. scientists, I highly
doubt it. On the other hand if "they" are French they
are but may not realize it. I suppose I could save up
and move to France, to try to help, but I am not sure
what the French would think of that.  
 
But you are probably right. I am being a little
overly-disillusioned by things. Its just that HIV is a
problem that needs to be solved, but I didn't want to
have to spend my whole life doing it. It seems to be
tying up a lot resources timewise, especially mine,
and moneywise, that could be used on cancer, diabetes,
and other aging related illnesses- the SENS stuff- but
only after more immediate problem gets solved. 


The Avantguardian 
is 
Stuart LaForge
alt email: stuart"AT"ucla.edu

"The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't attempted to contact us." 
-Bill Watterson


	
		
______________________________________________________ 
Yahoo! for Good 
Watch the Hurricane Katrina Shelter From The Storm concert 
http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/shelter 




More information about the extropy-chat mailing list