All Channels

Scientists successfully disarm HIV virus for development of possible vaccine

Scientists at Imperial College London and Johns Hopkins University have made a medical breakthrough, discovering that removing the cholesterol from the HIV virus’ membrane disarms is, allowing for them to final start development on a possible vaccine.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
RonyDean2435d ago

Scientists have just kicked some ass!

gaffyh2434d ago

Great news, but how exactly do they remove cholesterol from the cells?

Speed-Racer2434d ago

Injecting beta-cyclodextrin into the cell. Binds all the cholesterol and they take it out from there.

MorgasmM2434d ago

this is some pretty amazing news for the people who are suffering from this disease.

Speed-Racer2434d ago (Edited 2434d ago )

Haha yea, it's science week... just some days before they supposedly discovered particles traveling faster than the speed of light. Really ground breaking stuff.

RurouniKaze2434d ago

what was the particles ??

T3MPL3TON 2434d ago

Yeah, the Neutrino's really interest me. The scientific possibilities if this is a proven science are endless.

Trophywhore2434d ago ShowReplies(3)
JL2434d ago

Actually, this has no real bearing on people who already have it. A vaccine and a cure are two very different things. If they get a vaccine out of this, that won't help those who already have it.

I know you may reply that a vaccine could lead to a cure, but that's not necessarily true. It's a different beast. This is why you see several diseases that don't have cures but do have vaccines. The flu is an example. Polio being another. And rabies (though that one can be "cured" if caught before the disease takes hold in the body).

Honestly, a vaccine (a truly effective one, unlike with the flu) could even prove detrimental for a cure. If you look at it from a business standpoint (which that's what it all is at the end of the day), it might not prove beneficial to continue seeking a cure if they know they can prevent it from ever happening again. The backers behind that type of research may find it something of a "waste of money" to continue to spend billions of dollars on something that's only going to be a problem for like a decade after the vaccine. Just a cold truth of the matter.

Not that I'm against a cure. I'm all for it. Just wanted to clarify the difference between a vaccine and a cure. And to point out that due to politics/etc, a vaccine can sometimes serve as something of a death knell for a cure.

That being said, this is great news. Amazing indeed. This could be one of the biggest medical breakthroughs in quite some time. Somebody just earned themselves a Noble Prize.

DeFFeR2434d ago

" If you look at it from a business standpoint (which that's what it all is at the end of the day), it might not prove beneficial to continue seeking a cure if they know they can prevent it from ever happening again."

That's where you are wrong... a cure is worth much more money than a vaccine. Also, you'd be the company that "Found a cure for AIDS/HIV" which would probably fund the company until our extinction.

JL2434d ago

Yes, a cure is worth much more money than a vaccine probably. I wasn't saying it wasn't. But that's only if a vaccine doesn't exist. If a truly effective vaccine exists (one that truly prevents the disease with great certainty) then a cure becomes far less profitable if arriving after that.

The reason being that the "consumer base" for that cure becomes a very very small amount of people, since the vaccine will prevent future people from even getting the disease. And if you look at it from a business standpoint, that "limited customer base" begins to appear FAR less profitable when factoring in the billions of dollars it would take to continue on to find a cure as well.

theonlylolking2434d ago

This is what I consider real science. Not evolution or creation.

ghost2222434d ago

Evolution is real science without the theory we wouldn't have modern medicine.

MasterNexLev2434d ago

Are you certain? Please provide evidence of how we would not have modern medicine without evolution? What sort of evolution are you refering to? Are you refering to molecules to man evolution or wolf to poodle evolution?

I am not saying you are wrong, I am just aware that evolution means so many different things to different groups of people these days.

To Creationists, molecules to man evolution is not supported by evidence while Science is while they do support wolkf to poodle evolution.

To Evolutionist, both kids are supported. However we have never seen the sort of molecules to man evolution nor do we know how life started in the first place, at least last time I checked. Molecules to man is dependant on life starting from that primordial soup and I doubt we will ever get a chance to observe that. Same goes for man being created by God in the past.

So, seems to be it is the sort of eveolution that we can observe today that is PART of the sort of science that enables modern science.

Again, so it seems.

Guitardr852434d ago


Evolution means different things to different people because they don't know the definition of evolution. There is in fact one true definition and laws governing evolution. I was lucky enough in college to take and entire semester course on evolution and I can tell you that Ghost is somewhat correct. Withough random mutation selecting for preferable traits, our minds would never have evolved thus preventing us from developing science (or rather understanding the world around us as natural laws exist with or without us.

Shackdaddy8362434d ago

Dude, he's trolling. Just look at his name. It's obvious...

He's trying to start a "religious vs science" flame war.

ghost2222434d ago

I am not trolling I got the name from the video game mw2.

madjedi2434d ago

@ghost I believe they are calling masternexlev the troll, not you.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 2434d ago
bangoskank2434d ago (Edited 2434d ago )

Would be awesome if a cure for cancer was discovered next.

bangoskank2434d ago

Nope. Such a complex disease. I don't think it will ever be curable. I hope I'm wrong.

Guitardr852434d ago

Right the problem with cancer is that there may not be one single cure as every type of cancer is different for each person as well as different for each type of cell, tissue, or system in each person.

Shackdaddy8362434d ago

There isn't a cure-all process for cancer.

Scientists are very very close though. You and I probably wont die from cancer in our lives because of the great scientists today.

Bull5hifT2434d ago

Heard there was like 1,000 types of cancer ....probrably is a cure, as there probrably is an air or water powered car, gas companys give only to the richest, medicine companys the same.... If there was a cure, they wouldnt be able to charge your insurance thousands of dollars a month for medicine

DeFFeR2434d ago

They are very very close... this article is very promising.

Safe link - Penn State University

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 2434d ago
Show all comments (38)