http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/list/30.page JForum - http://www.jforum.net
It's been 27 years since the HIV pandemic began and we still don't have a cure, paraplegics still can't walk, Alzhiemer's and Parkinson's patients still have no cure. Muscular Dystrphy, hell even the common cold doesn't have a cure. I can't even think of one disease or condition that has actually been cured in the patients suffering from them.

Help me out here, can y'all name a few? I'm sure there are probably some examples of life threatening illnesses or debilitating conditions that have been cured but I'm just drawing a blank right now.]]> http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/103/280.page http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/103/280.page GMT http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/103/281.page http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/103/281.page GMT
I think biotech companies should find permanent cures to all disease and then move away from the business of curing sick people to the business of improving healthy people. You know, gene therapy for penis enlargement, breast augmentation, life extension ext.]]> http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/103/282.page http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/103/282.page GMT
Many people with cancer (particularly leukemias and lymphomas) have been cured by chemotherapy.

Anti-venom has saved many lives.



]]> http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/103/283.page http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/103/283.page GMT
In addition, there are drugs that have led to remission of various types of cancer (e.g. Gleevec/imatinib, used for treatment of GIST and chronic myeloid leukemia), gene therapy has restored the immune system in people with severe combined immunodeficiency (although the methodology was imperfect, causing several to then develop leukemia), enzyme replacement therapy can "cure" certain enzyme deficiencies, bone marrow transplantation has cured SCID or leukemia, and organ transplantation has "cured" those with organ failure. These are only a few examples that immediately spring to mind--I'm sure there are countless others.

However, as far as I know, none of these "cures" works for every person with the disease, due to person-to-person variation (not all people with the same disease have the same genetic defect, for example), lack of availability (in the case of tissue-matched organs), or lack of funds/insurance coverage/insurance reimbursement. In addition, many drugs or therapies lead to severe side effects or adverse reactions (e.g. leukemia, organ rejection, graft-versus-host disease), such that the "cure" can be worse than the disease. Maybe these are the real reasons that we have relatively few "cures," rather than some massive conspiracy in which companies make more money with expensive therapies for chronic conditions than for actual cures.

I should also mention that the definition of success cannot be merely limited to the complete eradication/cure of a disease; converting a previously fatal disease (e.g. HIV/AIDS) into a chronic, manageable disease should also be considered a success!
]]> http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/103/284.page http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/103/284.page GMT Polio has not been eradicated globally quite yet. It is still endemic in 4 countries.
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs114/en/index.html

Vaccination cannot cure disease, it can only prevent. This is because of how the immune system works. It takes 5-7 days for T cells and B cells to recognize antigen (the virus or bacterial component) be activated, go through somatic hypermutation to increase affinity of antibodies (in B cells) and clonally expand to produce those antibodies, as well as larger numbers of T cells. Most of those cells become effector cells, but some of them become memory cells.

In all infectious disease, it is not the drug that cures, it is the immune system. In bacterial disease, antibiotics slow down reproduction and to a degree can kill bacterial populations. But what that accomplishes is to give the immune system a little help so that it can finish the job.

But let us digress to what a vaccine is. A vaccine is the presentation of material to the immune system in a form that can be responded to by adaptive immunity. Adaptive immunity is the process described above, and in a nutshell, a vaccine primes the immune system so that when the real thing comes along, it can expand an already adapted pool of memory cells. Think of it as like going to school. If you had to learn algebra in 10 days or you would die, well, maybe you would, and maybe you wouldn't. But if you went to school first, then sure, you'd do fine.

There are different types of vaccines. Attenuated viruses are the actual disease, but mutated so that it does not cause serious illness - polio and measles are exemplary of this type. Component vaccines present some partial antigen (protein or protein bound to lipids or sugars) flu vaccines and toxin vaccines like tetanus are examples. DNA vaccines inoculate with a gene or two of a disease, and get the cells to produce the foriegn protein themselves.

[quote=ElwalTS1040613]It's been 27 years since the HIV pandemic began and we still don't have a cure, paraplegics still can't walk, Alzhiemer's and Parkinson's patients still have no cure. Muscular Dystrphy, hell even the common cold doesn't have a cure. I can't even think of one disease or condition that has actually been cured in the patients suffering from them.[/quote]

HIV is a special virus. For all the diseases for which there is a vaccine, those infected either clear the virus (measles, colds, flu, etcetera), establish immune system dominance over the virus, clearing it from most of the body (herpes, chicken pox), or establish antibodies to a critical toxin (tetanus), and thereby prevent "cure" the disease. (Even untreated tetanus can be survived ~45% mortality rate.) But HIV does not have clearance of the virus. HIV has very rare individuals, clinically called Long Term Non Progressors (LTNPs), who support high levels of virus, but do not develop low T cell counts. But they do not clear the virus. It is probable that those people are rare mutants, whose characteristics may not be duplicable in normal people. HIV mutates rapidly, so much that every cell that gets infected produces thousands of new mutants. Since it goes on so long in the body (7-20 years) the ecology of a single person becomes more complex than the ecology of mutants passed from person to person. (That can happen because the virus has a narrower set of requirements to infect another person than it does to infect cells within one person.) HIV also is a retrovirus, and large fractions of the cells that are infected will integrate into the DNA of infected cells. Some of those are memory cells with a half-life of 18 months or so. Do the math on that half-life (meaning half of those cells will die every 18 months) and it goes below one after decades from 1 million to 10 million cells to start with. Q = q x 0.5^( t/18 ) where Q is the number of cells left, q is the original quantity and t is the number of months. So if it were possible to stop all new infections of cells in someone with HIV, it would take 60-100 years for all of the latent cells to die off. This is why, after retroviral treatment, if a person stops taking their medications, the virus bounces back within a few months. Everything in literature at this point about HIV indicates that a cure is unlikely, and at best, fairly long term survival is going to be the (non-guaranteed) end point. There is reason to believe that a vaccine [i]cannot [/i]work for HIV.

It has been 27 years in the developed world since we started recognizing HIV as a disease. But the virus appears to have been with us and our close relatives for a million years or more. Gorillas have it, chimpanzees carry it, other monkeys have it, or rather quite close relatives of our two main strains.

Alzheimer's, muscular dystrophy, and Parkinsons disease are not caused by bacteria or viruses. While research exists trying to explore vaccination for alzheimer's, it has a basic problem called the blood-brain barrier. That barrier keeps the immune system out, except under rare conditions. We call the invasion of the brain by immune system cells encephalitis (which can also be caused by some direct infections) and usually the immune system does more damage than the disease does in the brain.

Paraplegia is caused by injury usually, and while the long term damage is partly immune system related, you would not want the treatment that would prevent any inflammation and cell death, since that would result in shutdown of the immune system and rapid death. So instead, one should focus on stem cells for repair, and prevention of damage by several days of low body temperature together with phenobarbital and piracetam. Once this early period is over, nerve cells stop dying.

The common cold is the product of a large pool of hundreds of viruses that are mutating and reassorting. (I am including influenza here, because it can give the same symptoms for many people.) The reason there is not a vaccine for all those viruses is because we have not spent the money to research them all and develop a vaccine for each one. It is questionable also whether it would be wise to do so, because of what is called "original antigenic sin". When you create antibodies to a virus, if you get an infection later with a mutant of that virus, your immune system will swing into action with memory antibodies rather than making new ones. Sometimes that can backfire, when the antibodies are good enough to "pass muster" as matching by the immune system, but not good enough to fully deactivate the virus in circulation. This leads to a protracted illness in some. Since colds are mostly non-fatal, it is probably best to just treat them symptomatically, and realize that we live in a complex ecology of diseases that we cannot entirely control.

[quote=ElwalTS1040613]Help me out here, can y'all name a few? I'm sure there are probably some examples of life threatening illnesses or debilitating conditions that have been cured but I'm just drawing a blank right now.[/quote]

Probably the best example of that for vaccination is rabies, but it's in part due to an accident of viral biology. Rabies vaccination is delivered to a person as soon as possible after possible infection with the virus. If that is done, what happens is that the vaccination spurs the immune system to respond faster than the virus would. The rabies virus can manifest 2 weeks to a year or so after inoculation. Luckily, its progress is a little slow, and this allows the vaccine to prime the immune system in a week. So when the virus starts its reproduction in earnest, the immune system cells are already hard at work, and most people will not develop symptoms.

Understanding what a vaccine is will help you to understand the limitations of this method. Vaccines are not drugs. Vaccines are like education programs so that when you get into a real life situation your body knows what to do. ]]> http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/103/286.page http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/103/286.page GMT
Yes, potential cures are kept away from patients. A simple, inexpensive compound (dichloroacetate; see http://www.thedcasite.com/ or search PubMed) already approved for treating a rare metabolic disorder has been shown to be highly effective against some cancers, but no oncologist is using it clinically because there's no money in it for pharmaceutical companies, and only pharmas can afford the expense of clinical trials. The same holds true for so-called "neutraceuticals," natural components of foods and traditional medicinal plants that people take for their supposed health benefits. Some such products have shown promise, without apparent toxicity, against a variety of common health problems. The pharmas are trying to have the FDA declare them "drugs" so they'll be pulled from the market until/unless they're shown safe and effective in clinical trials, which won't happen unless the pharmas can figure a way to patent and profit from them.

Even treatments that don't cure, but would interfere with companies' profits, are kept out of the hands of patients. Diabetes has no cure. Insulin supplementation, no matter how administered, cannot approach the body's normal moment-by-moment response to changes in serum glucose and other physiologic signals. The anti-diabetic drugs pushed on Type 2 diabetics just postpone their starting insulin treatment, and their side effects - severe gastrointestinal upset and, for the thiazolidinediones, increased abdominal fat storage - can be more unpleasant than self-administering several injections a day. The costs associated with uncomplicated diabetes are substantial, when you consider lancets and test strips or cartridges for measuring blood glucose up to 6 times a day; patented drugs; insulin delivery systems ranging from disposable syringes and needles to pumps with infusion sets that must be replaced twice a week; and frequent doctor visits. A needle-free, air-powered, refillable insulin "pen" (with no disposables) is available in Europe, but US manufacturers have succeeded in preventing its approval here. Likewise, blood testing systems that can approximate glucose levels based on some physical parameter that doesn't require pricking the skin or use of disposable test strips have been kept off the US market, supposedly because of their lower accuracy; but they're accurate enough to warn of dangerous highs or lows, they'd reduce the frequency of painful sticking, and standard glucose monitoring would remain as a backup. If a cure were found for diabetes or for atherosclerosis (statins are probably the top-selling prescription drugs on the market), it wouldn't make it through Phase II clinical trials before it would drop out of sight. The pharmaceutical companies and manufacturers of related products couldn't afford to allow its release.]]> http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/103/287.page http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/103/287.page GMT http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/103/288.page http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/103/288.page GMT some of the mucopoylsaccharidoses (with degrading enzymes, iduronidase)
Losarten is looking good for Marfans
many vitamin deficiencies
scurvey (vitamin C)
Pellagra (niacin, tryptophan)
scientific knowledge has led to the possibility to prevent colon cancer, HIV, most lung cancer and much type II diabetes
Parasitic diseases (giardia, etc)
Some fungal diseases
loss of limb (artificial limbs have greatly improved)
poor eye sight (corneal implants, lasix, contact lenses)
poor hearing (hearing aids, cochlear implants)
arrythmia (pacemakers)
I could go on............
]]> http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/103/289.page http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/103/289.page GMT
An alternate interpretation of the question is that it asks "Which diseases have been cured by vaccination and not just eradicated by vaccination?" and was intended to pertain only to human diseases. That would greatly reduce the selections unless you included mental conditioning as a psychological form of vaccination.
]]> http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/103/301.page http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/103/301.page GMT http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/103/349.page http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/103/349.page GMT
It's been 27 years since the HIV pandemic began and we still don't have a cure, paraplegics still can't walk, Alzhiemer's and Parkinson's patients still have no cure. Muscular Dystrphy, hell even the common cold doesn't have a cure. I can't even think of one disease or condition that has actually been cured in the patients suffering from them.

Help me out here, can y'all name a few? I'm sure there are probably some examples of life threatening illnesses or debilitating conditions that have been cured but I'm just drawing a blank right now.[/quote]

Vaccines are designed to provide a boost to immunity and not a cure for a disease.]]> http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/103/440.page http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/103/440.page GMT

that would depend on how chronic the disease is and what the natural history 9time course) of it is. Takes time to launch an effective immune response.]]> http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/103/441.page http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/103/441.page GMT
Also - polio has not been eradicated. Only one disease has been eradicated and that is smallpox. ]]> http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/103/444.page http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/103/444.page GMT
Also - polio has not been eradicated. Only one disease has been eradicated and that is smallpox. [/quote]

True. It is a goal to eradicate polio through vaccination that has yet to be achieved.]]> http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/103/448.page http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/103/448.page GMT Smallpox has not been eradicated by vaccination, but natural eradicated. My guess there is the principle of the dynamic relationship between pathogen and environment. Mathematics model P = f.En ( P = Pathogen, En = Environment ). ]]> http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/103/607.page http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/103/607.page GMT you are delusional.

Google Donald Henderson]]> http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/103/608.page http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/103/608.page GMT
All my best,
GatotS]]> http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/103/610.page http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/103/610.page GMT ]]> http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/103/611.page http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/103/611.page GMT I cannot cite a single disease that at its clinical manifestation can be cured by vaccination.
This include the many diseases that can be prevented by vaccination prior infection/initiation (e.g. all classical childhood diseases, influenza) and the diseases that can be stopped from progressing to clinical manifest disease upon contamination (e.g. rabies, tetanus).

In contrast to vaccination, other therapeutic interventions (e.g. antibiotics, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, antiviral agents) have been proven to be effective against established disease.

Thus I would state
[b]a curative vaccine does not work[/b]

From an immunological point of view this is not all too surprising. Vaccine trigger the initiation of a specific immune response, like most - if not all - diseases do. The difference resides in the fact that the vaccine does this without clinical disease. Thereby allowing immunity to rise before the onset of mortality. Theories of B and T lymphocyte immunity, show that specific immune responses require quite some time to develop due to their clonal nature and the required cell divisions.

When people have the flue, rabies, AIDS, cancer, simply initiating an immune response against influenza virus, HIV, rabies virus, tumor related antigens will not be sufficient to cure the disease. Actually the body has already initiated an immune response, which could not prevent the onset of clinical disease.

In clinical manifest disease, scientist have to be more creative to be able to boost curative responses.

John

[url]http://www.jjljacobs.tk/[/url]]]> http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/103/754.page http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/103/754.page GMT [b]a curative vaccine does not work[/b]
...
When people have the flue, rabies, AIDS, cancer, simply initiating an immune response against influenza virus, HIV, rabies virus, tumor related antigens will not be sufficient to cure the disease. Actually the body has already initiated an immune response, which could not prevent the onset of clinical disease.

In clinical manifest disease, scientist have to be more creative to be able to boost curative responses.

John

[url]http://www.jjljacobs.tk/[/url][/quote]

So which router should be our priority? Finding a cure for the aformentioned diseases or developing effective vaccines against them?

I say we should stop trying to developed vaccines. Why? Take cancer for example, with all the multitude of different types of cancer that excist we'de probably have to take 50 or more vaccines for each kind, 1 vaccine for lung cancer, 1 vaccine for prostate cancer, 1 vaccine for breast cancer, pancriatic, ext. Additionaly, as of this post, all vaccines that have been tried against HIV have failed and failed miserably. Some of them even made people more succeptible to becomming infected.

Besides, vaccines are so old school, a 10th grader with a decent lab could make a vaccine. We're going to need some creative geniuses to come up with cures.]]> http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/103/768.page http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/103/768.page GMT
I say we should stop trying to developed vaccines. Why? Take cancer for example, with all the multitude of different types of cancer that excist we'de probably have to take 50 or more vaccines for each kind, 1 vaccine for lung cancer, 1 vaccine for prostate cancer, 1 vaccine for breast cancer, pancriatic, ext. Additionaly, as of this post, all vaccines that have been tried against HIV have failed and failed miserably. Some of them even made people more succeptible to becomming infected.

Besides, vaccines are so old school, a 10th grader with a decent lab could make a vaccine. We're going to need some creative geniuses to come up with cures.[/quote]

I understand your reasoning, and I largely agree. Scientist, including myself, are too stubborn to stop going on a certain route. Some keep on trying to develop new kinds of vaccines that can overrule the current immune status in patients. Maybe it will work, time will tell ... My own work, however, goes in a different direction, see [url]http://www.cancerimmunotherapy.tk[/url]
John
]]> http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/103/770.page http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/103/770.page GMT Genetically Modified Organisms !
Since God always creates everything in accordance with " the size " - all things in Proportion
and Measure - , so that God does not like the exaggerated thing. For those who always exaggerate will be precisely mislead by their own empty illusions. In the case of AIDS, why in such this modern science and technology also the molecular biology that has reached many complicated matters, for more than 25 years still can not subjugate AIDS ? In my opinion, AIDS is " a guest " sent by God in the world. This is a natural law, a kind of warning and forcing element to make the human to go back to the right way, also not to exaggerate on destroying their own circles of life, but to organize a harmonious life with the universe ....................


Gatot S Astari]]> http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/103/778.page http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/103/778.page GMT In order to cure a disease, one must find the cause first. Outside of infectious diseases, such as smallpox and polio, no one has found a cause of a chronic disease. If you look up the work of Otto Warburg on cell respiration, I believe you'll find that to be more of a correct direction. Also, inflammation is dramatically on the rise and is implicated in multiple chronic diseases. Maybe in tracking down the cause of that inflammation and how to deal with it could be a key. My clinical research has shown that most common cause of major inflammation in the body is the result of surgery. The inflammation created by entering surgically a body cavity is enormous.
Instead of using pharmacological medicine, which consists of foreign chemicals and negative "direct" effects, perhaps figuring out how to oxygenate each cell would give better results. Cancer is an anaerobic disease and maybe oxygen would help, for example]]> http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/103/845.page http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/103/845.page GMT Tuberculosis has been cured, which used to be a chronic disease ...

[quote=HarveyTS1050503]I believe that the theories of the germ cause of disease is basically wrong and we have followed a wrong path by using pharmaceutical medicine as the answer. It does not work!!
In order to cure a disease, one must find the cause first. Outside of infectious diseases, such as smallpox and polio, no one has found a cause of a chronic disease. [/quote]
I've lost track of your reasoning. Germs are the cause of infectious diseases, aren't they ....
So the only thing that does work would be the thing that does not work



[quote=HarveyTS1050503]If you look up the work of Otto Warburg on cell respiration, I believe you'll find that to be more of a correct direction. [/quote]
Please explain

[quote=HarveyTS1050503]Also, inflammation is dramatically on the rise and is implicated in multiple chronic diseases. Maybe in tracking down the cause of that inflammation and how to deal with it could be a key. My clinical research has shown that most common cause of major inflammation in the body is the result of surgery. The inflammation created by entering surgically a body cavity is enormous.
[/quote]
Inflammation is caused by most diseases, ranging from infection to irritation to toxicity to cancer to allergies to autoimmune diseases. The immune system and inlammation happen to be central to many diseases.

[quote=HarveyTS1050503] Instead of using pharmacological medicine, which consists of foreign chemicals and negative "direct" effects, perhaps figuring out how to oxygenate each cell would give better results. Cancer is an anaerobic disease and maybe oxygen would help, for example[/quote]
It is indeed true that cancer cells are dying by lack of oxygen, and that this is causing inflammation. But personally, I prefer to have my cancer cell dying, instead of having them well-oxygenated. ]]> http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/103/860.page http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/103/860.page GMT Severe immune deficiencies, commonly reffered to as AIDS, result from the toxicity of many recreational drugs and of most antiretroviral medications, from the abuse of antibiotics and certain therapeutic protocol, from inappropriate life style, and/or from malnutrition, alone or combined ".

www.aras.ab.ca

I largely agree with Dr.Etienne de Harven.

Hey ......, don't hide the truth !

]]> http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/103/1437.page http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/103/1437.page GMT Severe immune deficiencies, commonly reffered to as AIDS, result from the toxicity of many recreational drugs and of most antiretroviral medications, from the abuse of antibiotics and certain therapeutic protocol, from inappropriate life style, and/or from malnutrition, alone or combined ".

www.aras.ab.ca

I largely agree with Dr.Etienne de Harven.

Hey ......, don't hide the truth !

[/quote]

What are you aids denialist trying to acheive, is your beef with big pharma companies? Secondly, no one knows who the hell you are quoting!]]> http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/103/1443.page http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/103/1443.page GMT So which router should be our priority? Finding a cure for the aformentioned diseases or developing effective vaccines against them?

I say we should stop trying to developed vaccines. Why? Take cancer for example, with all the multitude of different types of cancer that excist we'de probably have to take 50 or more vaccines for each kind, 1 vaccine for lung cancer, 1 vaccine for prostate cancer, 1 vaccine for breast cancer, pancriatic, ext. Additionaly, as of this post, all vaccines that have been tried against HIV have failed and failed miserably. Some of them even made people more succeptible to becomming infected.

Besides, vaccines are so old school, a 10th grader with a decent lab could make a vaccine. We're going to need some creative geniuses to come up with cures.[/quote]

Haven't you heard the adage:
[i]"Prevention is better than cure"[/i]

Vaccines work. They prevent disease before it actually occurs.

You'd like scientists to stop pursuing a known successful disease prevention strategy (that you admit is so easy to produce too) to focus more efforts on cures that will only work on people who have to get the disease (and be diagnosed correctly, and then allocated teh correct treatment, and then follow the course)??

'Scuse my forum-board-smack-talk but that's what I like to call [color=violet][b]batshit crazy[/b][/color].


Unfortunately "cures" also fail at being universal panaceas. This means that while we might need a vaccine for breast cancer, a different one for lung cancer, and a further one for cervical cancer* - the exact same is true when you talk about cures. You'll need a different cure for each type of cancer.


*It's actually even more complicated, you'll need a vaccine/cure for each and every different mechanism by which these cancers operate. So that's one for HER2+ breast cancer, one for 000 breast cancer, one for a different breast cancer etc. - and even then you're bound to miss out on some of those cancers of unknown aetiology. Luckily some cancers share the same mechanism (like HER2+, or VEGF).
But, hey, ten years ago, people would have laughed at the idea of vaccines to prevent cancer - as they aren't infectious diseases caused by invading pathogens. (Well, generally - FUNFACT: Cervical cancer vaccines are actually against various strains of HPV -human papilloma virus - the virus behind genetial warts.)


[color=brown][b]In Summarry: Developiong vaccines is a good strategy to follow as its a proven successful and well understood (which makes it easier to produce) disease prevention strategy. I'd much rather have infectious diseases eradicated, than still around, but have a universal cure.[/b][/color]]]> http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/103/2213.page http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/103/2213.page GMT http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/103/2263.page http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/103/2263.page GMT
" Dominated by THE MEDIA, by SPECIAL PRESSURE GROUPS, and by the interests of several PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES, the AIDS establishment efforts to control the disease lost contact with open-minded, peer-reviewed medical science since the unproven HIV / AIDS received 100 % of the research funds while ALL OTHER HYPOTHESES WERE IGNORED " ( Dr. Etienne de Harven, Reppraising AIDS Nov/Dec 1998 ).


The 17^th International AIDS Conference in Mexico City :

- All the BIG PHARMACEUTICAL and MEDICAL SUPPLY COMPANIES will be there ......

- With each passing year, this meeting has been looking increasingly like A GIANT TRADE FAIR.

( Helen Epstein, August 3, 2008 ).


like A GIANT TRADE FAIR


WAR AGAINST AIDS VIRUSES :

IN A BATTLE, THE MAIN GOAL IS VICTORY, NOT EXTENDING THE CAMPAIGN.


]]> http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/103/2393.page http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/103/2393.page GMT ]]> http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/103/2514.page http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/103/2514.page GMT
Because no one could make any money from a proven effective cure for AIDS ...]]> http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/103/2515.page http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/103/2515.page GMT
For example, it is known that transplant recipients receiving HIV lacking the Nef protein survived a very long time without progression, though with some immune damage. Nef works at least in part through association with tyrosine kinase signals, preventing infected cells from producing the MHC complexes that target them to the immune system, thus helping HIV to stay hidden inside cells. So it's not impossible that one of the herbal treatments that interfere with tyrosine kinase signals (maybe some osteoporosis directed treatment like soy genistein, yukmi-jihang-tang and dae-bo-won-chun) might interfere with Nef activity and help HIV patients.[url=http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=18439275]1[/url][url=http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/340/22/1715]2[/url][url=http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T32-4M2WNV5-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=0576d51a9162359eee6e0e399070db5a]3[/url]

Now that's just wild speculation, mind, but it should demonstrate that we still shouldn't rule out the idea that "alternative" treatments might potentially have some use. And to be fair, it is true that pharmaceutical companies don't have any obvious motive to pioneer such treatments.]]> http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/103/2526.page http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/103/2526.page GMT ...thus helping HIV to stay hidden inside cells......


HIV has a hidden ability to harm. After entering the suitable cell, it can grow and hide in a latent
form. Not more than just as a " sleeping ' virus. It may take place for years, before it finally " gets up " and destroy its host-cell or transforming into the form of productive virus.]]> http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/103/2544.page http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/103/2544.page GMT
The rabies vaccine is an example of a vaccine that can be used to cure a condition after exposure to the pathogen. When a patient is bitten by a rabid animal, a schedule of several doses of the vaccine is immediately started. This vaccine then "jump starts" the immune system to get it to produce antigens to the virus that is in the system and will soon multiply in the body.

There are also Post Exposure Prevention (PEP) for HIV which eliminate the infection (could you call it a "cure"?) if administered within 72 hours of initial exposure to HIV. Details...
http://www.sfcityclinic.org/services/hivservices.asp

Now, I have to admit, you could argue that because there are no symptoms, what's being cured might not yet be defined as a disease.

Indeed, scientists are also investigating "vaccines" for diseases not caused by microorganisms. For example, there is a spinal cord injury vaccine being tested in animals now. (To prevent paralysis due to nerve death in the spinal column that happens in the weeks after a spinal cord trauma.) And you can google information about vaccines in development to prevent addiction.]]> http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/103/2567.page http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/103/2567.page GMT
Because no one could make any money from a proven effective cure for AIDS ...[/quote]

Can I just ask, why there's no money in creating an effective cure for AIDS? I don't get it.]]> http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/103/2657.page http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/103/2657.page GMT
[url=http://www.articlesinaclick.com/about-dominic/]make money from home[/url] | [url=http://www.articlesubmitauto.com/about-dominic.php]targeted traffic[/url]]]> http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/103/2658.page http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/103/2658.page GMT
An alternate interpretation of the question is that it asks "Which diseases have been cured by vaccination and not just eradicated by vaccination?" and was intended to pertain only to human diseases. That would greatly reduce the selections unless you included mental conditioning as a psychological form of vaccination. ]]> http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/103/2664.page http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/103/2664.page GMT
Because no one could make any money from a proven effective cure for AIDS ...[/quote]

Can I just ask, why there's no money in creating an effective cure for AIDS? I don't get it.[/quote]

Pretty sure the reply was sarcasm. Any big Pharm that created a cure for Aids would make Trillions & Trillions of dollars. No company would hide such a cure either because a competitor would inevitably release it in the meantime.]]> http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/103/2665.page http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/103/2665.page GMT http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/103/2666.page http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/103/2666.page GMT
Sorry. Yes was being sarcastic.

Aside from an Ayn Rand 'Atlas Shrugged' scenario - any company will make a megadodecasquibbigazillion dollars from a cure for AIDS/HIV. This can be evidenced by the amount of money that people claiming to have an effective cure (but who are actually lying river scum) are able to charge for their products.

HIV is not an [url=http://www.orpha.net/]orphan disease[/url]. Cures for orphan diseases I'd be more worried about getting innovative treatments for.]]> http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/103/2751.page http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/103/2751.page GMT I cannot cite a single disease that at its clinical manifestation can be cured by vaccination.
This include the many diseases that can be prevented by vaccination prior infection/initiation (e.g. all classical childhood diseases, influenza) and the diseases that can be stopped from progressing to clinical manifest disease upon contamination (e.g. rabies, tetanus).

In contrast to vaccination, other therapeutic interventions (e.g. antibiotics, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, antiviral agents) have been proven to be effective against established disease.

Thus I would state
[b]a curative vaccine does not work[/b]

From an immunological point of view this is not all too surprising. Vaccine trigger the initiation of a specific immune response, like most - if not all - diseases do. The difference resides in the fact that the vaccine does this without clinical disease. Thereby allowing immunity to rise before the onset of mortality. Theories of B and T lymphocyte immunity, show that specific immune responses require quite some time to develop due to their clonal nature and the required cell divisions.

When people have the flue, rabies, AIDS, cancer, simply initiating an immune response against influenza virus, HIV, rabies virus, tumor related antigens will not be sufficient to cure the disease. Actually the body has already initiated an immune response, which could not prevent the onset of clinical disease.

In clinical manifest disease, scientist have to be more creative to be able to boost curative responses.

John

[url]http://www.jjljacobs.tk/[/url][/quote]
Welcome to the site, thank you for supporting the site. It's people like you who read and try things yourself that make our lives a bit easier. Thank you.
[url=http://jeuxde-casino.com/][color=#F7F7FF][u]jeux de machine a sous
gratuit meilleur casino en ligne[/u][/url][/color][color=#F7F7FF] Jeux de
casino en ligne Plus de 140 Jeux de casino en ligne. Gagnez des
jackpots enormes.[/color][url=http://jeuxde-casino.com/][color=#F7F7FF][u]jeux
de machine a sous gratuit meilleur casino en ligne[/u][/url][/color]]]> http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/103/3197.page http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/103/3197.page GMT I know I see their earnings...I am also a daytrader in my spare time and follow their annual reports.
<a href="http://www.daytraderforecast.com/kwsite/stockbuyandsellsignals.html">Stock Buy and Sell Signals</a>]]> http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/103/3395.page http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/103/3395.page GMT
Our cure rate on diseases is limited because in most cases we try to counteract the body's natural healing mechanisms rather than work with them. Osteoporosis is a curable condition in many instances, depending on the underlying cause of the disease, but the methods currently used by most practitioners only arrest and do not cure.

But our ability to cure cancer is pretty impressive! Not as impressive as I think we'd like it to be, but we've come a long way.]]> http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/103/3547.page http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/103/3547.page GMT http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/103/4096.page http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/103/4096.page GMT I don't really get what you're driving at. I know of no genetic factors that make Africans or people of African descent more susceptible to HIV infection - all the factors I've ever heard of that account for the high rate of HIV infection in Africa are social, not biological. Well, unless you consider malnutrition to be biological, which I suppose it is, though many of the reasons for it are social. As for how an HIV vaccine would act as a pre-emptive strike, well... same way any other vaccine would. (I was referring to a strike against the DISEASE, not against the person, in case there was any question.)]]> http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/103/4097.page http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/103/4097.page GMT
Black U.S. AIDS Rates Rival some African Nations.
A few statistics :
1. Black Americans are eight times more likely to became HIV infected than White Americans.
2. AIDS is the leading cause of death among Black women age 25 - 34.
3. AIDS is the leading cause of death among Black men age 35 - 44.
4. In 2006, there were 7.426 deaths of AIDS among Black Americans compared to 3.860 White Americans.

" AIDS in America today is a Black Disease, " says Phyl Wilson, founder and CEO of the Black AIDS Institute, July 29, 2008.

_____________________________________________________
Black Body Radiation ? http://www.yalagada.com ........ Forum.
]]> http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/103/4105.page http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/103/4105.page GMT http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/103/4146.page http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/preList/103/4146.page GMT