http://www.healthtalk.ca/cancer hiv 021405 39933.php
Are they actually hitting two birds with one stone or at least on the road to doing so?
Printable View
http://www.healthtalk.ca/cancer hiv 021405 39933.php
Are they actually hitting two birds with one stone or at least on the road to doing so?
i don't really belive that it's possible.....
plsu how many people would wnat to be injected wiht HIV viruses?
This sounds ultra dodgy if you think about how many things could potentially go wrong. Then again, if you think about it, someone with terminal cancer doesn't exactly have much to lose...
wow...two illnesses in one!
tested on mice!? how do we know it works on humans?
this is very shifty looking i dont like it but if it works then great
That will be great if it works out.
Think Mission Impossible 2.
Sounds like a good idea to me.
Wow, I hope that works.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackmageboi
Animal testing = :mad2: :mad2: :mad2:
A virus goes into a cell, reproduces itself until it destroys the cell, and repeats. If this process could happen faster than cancer cells can reproduce then it's sounds completely logical and frankly ingenious. The body has no current way of destroying or counteracting the HIV virus. And genetically altering the virus to attack cancer cells instead of T-cells would make the virus harmless to a person who didn't have cancer, and only helpful to a person who did. Also, injecting people with this could in theory make someone kind of immune to cancer (they wouldn't not get cancer, it's just that the virus would attack the cancer before it had a chance to do anything severe).
However, I think these scientists might be overlooking the fact that the HIV virus mutates inside of the body after being dormant, one of the reasons humans cannot effectively restraint it indefinately. Things could go unforseenly wrong and bad. But it is still good in theory.
If we didn't do animal testing we would all be dead from smallpox by now, just to name one. No, animal testing is not very nice, but an animal's (especially a mouse's) metabolism and internal systems repsonses are exponentially faster than ours, and testing that would take decades to do on humans can be done on mice in a matter of months, maybe a few years.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rye
Most mammals have the same basic internal workings, especially on a cellular level. So testing something on mice gives you a basic understanding of what would happen to a human. It still needs to be testing on a human, but if it works on mice the likelihood of it being successful in humans is about 98%.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackmageboi
Holy smokes, that's insane! I sure hope they're successful with this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Destai
SDRL raised the point I was going to mention. I'd like to know precisely how this particular strand of HIV has been made harmless, as the article states, and what garuntee they have that it'll stay that way.
With something like this, they'll need to run hundreds of thousands of carefully documented trials and have a success rate of close to 99.9900% in every case tried.
mice and rats are very cute, but I'd much rather experiment on hundreds of thousands of mice and rats than hundreds of thousands of human cancer patients.
True, but our bodies are different and some things that are beneficial for humans kill animals and visa versa, so I dislike it. I mean, for AIDs research, I guess it's kinda necessary, but for smaller stuff, it's horrible.
AIDS research isn't a whole lot bigger than Cancer research, you know.
AIDs and Cancer and very bad things like that. Testing a flu shot or testing cosmetics on an animal is just horrible. Minor stuff can be tested on humans who are so desperate for cash that they volunteer themselves, and believe me, there are a lot of those.
i wonder though, could u still pass it sexually?
Because then noone will pay for the shot, think P2P file-sharing only alittle more fun. They'll go out of business.
On topic its really a good idea, these people are pure genius.
This isn't hitting two birds with one stone, this is hitting one bird with another bird.
Good stuff IMO.
Where do you draw the line between minor and large? Flu can kill. I'd agree that cosmetics shouldn't be tested on animals.Quote:
AIDs and Cancer and very bad things like that. Testing a flu shot or testing cosmetics on an animal is just horrible. Minor stuff can be tested on humans who are so desperate for cash that they volunteer themselves, and believe me, there are a lot of those.
Better article:Quote:
I'd like to know precisely how this particular strand of HIV has been made harmless, as the article states, and what garuntee they have that it'll stay that way.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releas...-ust020905.php
Abstract to scientific paper:
http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPa...bs/nm1192.html
i'm not payin 30 bux tho. some universities give access to sites like these for free.
Animal testing is fine, so long as it is testing on something productive. We are trying to cure diseases here, not test perfumes and shampoo's. I say it's ok to test on an animal if it's going to have a REALy benefeit. This just might.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rye
theres a certain disease humans get that kill monkeys when you go near them
yes animal testing is bad but like it has been said it's for life saving sure a few mice will die but think of how many human lives could be saved.
so hows this CSM going to kill the cancer?
I dont know. Does it work something like instead of breaking down the defensive system the way AIDS would it breaks down the cancer cells?
yeah but once it's purpose has been served what use is it? it could go out of control and break down you're immunity cells. but does the CSM break it down enough for the body to get rid of it or the kemotheropy to be quicker and less harmfull
i beg to differ ALL animal testing is wrong if people find it moraly wrong to test on humans then how is it so that they will test on so called lesser speicesQuote:
Originally Posted by nik0tine
sorry for any misspelings
What the hell can we do? They cant just inject HIV and Cancer into a human un tested. That would be murder. If you allow that to happen even if the test subject wanted to die it would mess up alot of the laws on murder. Even if that was aloud to happen it would only be used by people who want to die and the rtesearch would get nowhere and the amount of lives they're trying to save would have to wait. Why dont you quit bitching and offer a suggestion instead?
what would you rather have a few animal's lives for millions or manslaughter and murder and saving millions why don't you just go protest or something it's not as if we care and like Destai said the scientists could be jailed for life and there would be no cure so just stop mouthin off and going against something that could save millions of lives not just human but animals aswell,
you see it's like that but when it gets to perfumes and cleaning products testing thats a whole different
fine i will keep my opinions to myself
thats better
:(
Humans aren't the only mammals that get cancer. Cancer is basically just an uncontrollable burst of cells dividing and blocking the functions of those cells around them. <-- (WAY oversimplification)
Different Cancers generally behave in the same manner, even cross-species. Therefore, this research could also benefit veterinary medicine as well.
Testing on mice and rats provides a faster view of what the various treatments do because of the increased metabolism in both these types of animal which makes the treatment run its course a lot faster than it would in humans. If one mouse dies, the other mice around it do not grieve and wail or alter their behavior in the least. In fact, a lot of times, the other mice will eat the dead one. When a human dies, the entire community feels the loss.
Few animals lives are taken? Actually, it's more like 22-100 million. A YEAR.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shoden
:) nicely said couldnt have put that better in any way
Thats true but while you can easily point that out and moan (which you didnt do in this post) one thing anti animal testing followers never do is come up with a suggestion and if it stays that way its not going to change.
There are actually proven ways that work, such as using a certain vegetable for some sort of eye testing instead ripping the eyes out of the poor animals and others. I read about them because my brother was doing a report about animal testing.
Im no expert but I know it wont be half as succesful as doing it to another mammal. The difference between a mouse biologically to a human is 98% someone said in this thread. Imagine the difference between a Human and a carrot or whatever this magical vegetable is. And the effects show on a mouse much faster than a human. Im pretty sure this vegeatble cant manage as well.
millions compared to Billions if it suceeds than billions of people could be saved for Generations to come
Umm... a few pointers for those less bio-science inclined:
1. Cancer is caused when one of your own cells is mis-copied, and behaves unlike how it should. Usually, it dies, but sometimes it forms a growth and spreads, which causes a variety of problems to vast to list here. That's the reason our systems have such trouble spotting cancer cells- they're more like a rebellion than an invasion.
2. HIV, and all other viroids, survive by attacking a cell, merging into it, growing to maximum density, and leaving. End result: a thousand or more virii, and a dead cell. THESE are the invaders.
3. Most viral strains can only attack certain tissues. HIV affects, typically, only the imune tissue and the liver tissue. Rabies affects nervous system, and only those cells within it. And so forth. A virus coded to affect a cancer could probably only affect one type of cancer.
In HIVs case, it's unlikely it would mutate in such a way to make itself able to infect a new type of tissue. It has had more than enough time to do so in nature, yet hasn't. I don't know why, no scientist would do more than speculate, but of all the AIDS in the world, it has never jumped to a new type of tissue. Maybe it can't, I don't know.
HIV, however, is a retrovirus. The super-rare (thankfully) type of viral chain that uses RNA instead of DNA codes. It mutates faster, spreads more rapidly, is harder for the immune system to fight. Heck, just look at the Ebola retro-virus. I'd be loath to rely either for the job at hand, but such is the price one pays.
And although plant and other organism testing has some merit, you could NEVER trust it to behave the same way in the areas of the immune system (which only animals truly possess). Which, FYI, both cancer and HIV are a matter of.
Also, this modified version probably would still possess the ability to transfer sexually. However, even the natural version doesn't guarentee a spread during contact. And it's doubtful then that the virus would have a chance to reach exploitable cells before its rather limited luck ran out. And the immune system can attack HIV, especially a type that won't fight back. You'd have to be sexually active with an "onco-phage" (cancer-eater) carrier for months before a successful infection. Whereas, all the docs would need do is stick a needle in the cancer and inject it strait. Guarenteed results, first time around.
And there are also ways of testing certain cancer therapies on yeast cells. But the truth of the matter is that it will have to be tested on a mammal at some point. I do this stuff for a living. If someone brought to the scientific community some eye treatment based entirely on the workings of vegetables, he/she would be laughed out of the country. All scientific measures are started in single cellular or low multi-cellular organisms. To start research on a mouse would be insane. But eventually, you are going to have to test stuff on a system parallel to that of a what you are trying to treat. If you are trying to treat something with an eye, say a human, you can't base your research entirely on something that doesn't have an eye, say a carrot. You can do preliminary testing on a carrot, it's actually what goes on in general. But you are going to have to test this on something with an eye, and that testing can throw variables in that you didn't see before and more testing is going to need to be done. People have been working of cancer related stuff for years, and they always start their research in yeast, it's a very good environment for these tests. But, if you want viable data to use, you are going to have to go beyond yeast into a mammal. Don't think that scientist like to work with mice or anything. If we could all work with yeast we would. It's simple, cost efficient, and very effective. But the truth of the matter is we can't, because the data from yeast simply isn't enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rye
Is that really a reputible site?
In and of itself, no. I wouldn't trust anything on the internet as "reliable". But it isn't the only source, and you can check out medical science journals that have similar materials. The use of virii to attack cancer has been a dream for at least the last decade. The use of HIV is a logical choice. Other than that, well, there is a LOT of government (USA) funding in this area. I can't speak for anywhere else, though.Quote:
Originally Posted by ZeZipster
And, there are documented "miracle" cases where a viral infection triggered a remission or complete destruction of a cancerous tumor in a patient that was diagnosed as incurable. If it happens in nature, we should eventually be able to replicate the results.
Case studies don't provide the best research. For example, all of Frued's theories were based on about 150 case studies and look how screwy all that stuff turned out to be.
Never said they did. I'm just saying that said studies at least warrent further investigation. When coupled with a strong theory and some empirical data, such as in this case, it's definately worth the attempt. Especially given the potential rewards we would reap. Admittedly, I'd prefer a safer disease than HIV to toy with, but I'm not the expert.