HIV-blocking Gene Found

A gene that blocks the HIV virus and the onset of AIDS has been discovered by a research group at the University of Alberta.
Stephen Barr, a molecular virologist in the Department of Medical Microbiology and Immunology, says his team has identified a gene called TRIM22 that can block HIV infection in a cell culture by preventing the assembly of the virus.

"When we put this gene in cells, it prevents the assembly of the HIV virus," said Barr, a postdoctoral fellow. "This means the virus cannot get out of the cells to infect other cells, thereby blocking the spread of the virus."

The next step is to find out why this gene doesn’t work in people who have HIV, and investigate possible ways to activate it. Link

1.) There is absolutely NO proof that HIV causes AIDS.
2.) People have gotten AIDS without being infected with HIV.
3.) HIV is a relatively benign disease.

Command science - the pressuring of scientists to conform to certain ideals in fear of being rejected by the scientific community through peer-reviewed journals.

Before you reject this idea, read some of Peter Duesberg's articles.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Better yet, before you accept Dr. Duesberg's ideas, read some articles about Dr. Duesberg's articles.

I, for one, am very excited about Dr. Barr's work.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Better still, before you listen to anything Jerse has to say on any subject, check out his previous comments here at Neatorama.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Don't be so quick to reject the idea that HIV doesn't cause AIDS. GlaxoSmithKline is a billion-dollar industry that produces drugs to combat HIV. Do you really think that they would allow someone with credentials to even try and say that HIV doesn't cause AIDS? Do you think they would allow someone to take away their money?

Really think about it...

And ted, you can't listen to writing - so stop being a stalker.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
ok champ here's the thing

your first argument about glaxosmithkline is just blatantly unsubstantiated speculation and typical conspiracy theory fodder

and then your comment to ted is an arbitrary correction of a colloquialism when everyone who read it knew what he meant (you included), complete with an irrelevant insult attached.

stop. posting. ignorance.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)

GlaxoSmithKline holds a virtual monopoly in manufacturing antiretroviral drugs used for treating HIV. You might think that it's conspiracy fodder, but when a corporation has a substantial investment in a market of that caliber - is it really that far fetched to think that they'll suppress dissenting opinions that would end their operations if that opinion were proven correct?

As for ted and the insult, it's not irrelevant. I've already clashed with him(her?) before on some issues and I think he still might be bitter about it.

Stalker - a follower or tabkeeper of another person

And as for you joo, I do enjoy debating - how about my first first argument? Got anything on that?
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
I do, you're an idiot conspiracy theorist. No one agrees with you and the most of us can read. Come up with some hard evidence before you point the tip of the sword.
Geeeez you're like a regular Mel Gibson son.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
In order to address the complaints Duesberg raises just hope on wiki, there's plenty of other reading from reputed scientists and journals that clearly outline his complaints and provide contrary evidence. From what I read he has done no experiment to prove that HIV is not responsible, he appears to have inferred from a selective reading of the literature.
To me his theory reads as though it has been designed to blame those with AIDS as rec. drug users and therefore culpable.
Essentially there is no acceptable volume of peer-reviewed evidence to suggest AIDS is not caused by HIV, and its a mighty big conspiracy to expect this is the result of GlaxoSmithKline or the CIA covering up the truth.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Ah, so now I'm a stalker... nice. Bitter, too.

I stopped conversing with Jerse in one other thread, since he was consistently completing ignoring each point I made, making insults, and trying to twist my words into hatefulness. I'm not here to argue with trolls, so I gave up.

As for Dr Duesberg, this thread is not about his crackpot conspiracy theories nor is it about Intelligent Design, which seems based on the same sort of "science".

AIDS is a so-called syndrome resulting from the presence of the Human Immunodeficiency Virus and at least one other "AIDS defining illness". An AIDS defining illness, such as Kaposi's sarcoma, is an illness that can be found outside of an HIV infection, but would not be considered AIDS without the presence of HIV. AIDS, by its very definition, requires the presence of HIV.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)

There's plenty of opposition arguments from other scientists - there always has been (this is not the only case). Not too long ago Ritalin was the cure for ADD in children, smoking helped your digestion, and marijuana made you insane.

Dr. Duesberg is a reputable scientist, with an impressive resume ranging from discovering the oncogene, a strand of DNA that causes cancer, to gaining tenure as a professor of biology at UC Berkeley.

He hasn't been able to conduct experiments because his funding was cut once he came forward with his HIV/AIDS theory - this is the use of command science I spoke of earlier.

But whatever his theory might be about how people contract AIDS, there is still no evidence that suggests HIV causes AIDS - hence this discovery by Dr. Barr will have little impact on the spread of AIDS.

HIV and AIDS are two separate and distinguishable diseases - there are 0 cases where it has been proven that HIV develops into AIDS - and there are cases through 1989 from the CDC (Center for Disease Control and Prevention) that prove people have contracted AIDS without contracting HIV. After 1989 - no cases - why? Because a reputable scientist, Duesberg, came forth with his "crackpot" theory.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Duesberg WAS a reputable scientist, however he has clung to a theory for which the evidence is overwhelmingly against him. This is not good science.

The idea that no evidence has been found linking HIV to AIDS is laughable, here are a couple of early papers that about the discovery of the link:
If you can't accept the prevailing body of literature about a subject, or provide sufficient evidence to the contrary you may as well not believe anything.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)

Duesberg has controversial ideas, that doesn't mean he ceases to be a good scientist...

Those articles don't provide any concrete evidence that HIV becomes AIDS - they say HIV may cause AIDS, not HIV causes AIDS.

And yes, I don't trust the prevailing body of literature because I think that there is definitely something else going on -like how hasn't Magic Johnson contracted AIDS yet? It's been almost 20 years since he said he was HIV positive...
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
The funny thing is Jerse accepts Duesberg's "controversial ideas", even though there's little solid evidence to support them.

But, he demands you provide infallible, incontrovertible proof to support the traditional point of view, accepted by the majority of scientists and rational thinkers.

I advise you to give up, aj. Crackpot theorists don't want to be convinced they're wrong.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Login to comment.
Click here to access all of this post's 18 comments

Email This Post to a Friend
"HIV-blocking Gene Found"

Separate multiple emails with a comma. Limit 5.


Success! Your email has been sent!

close window

This website uses cookies.

This website uses cookies to improve user experience. By using this website you consent to all cookies in accordance with our Privacy Policy.

I agree
Learn More