01 Apr 08
Originally posted by AThousandYoungIt wouldn't cure AIDS because, as pointed out by FabianFnas, the virus is not just in the blood. However, I believe blood transfusions are sometimes used for severe cases of AIDS in order to reduce the viral load. I could be wrong, but thats what I heard.
That's one of the first things that jumped into my mind when thinking about curing AIDS. Have a tube going into the person and one coming out. The tubes go to a machine that purifies the blood outside of the body itside itself then it goes back to the body.
I know of someone who has kidney failure, and she is being treated by regularly being put on an artificial kidney machine, but that is very expensive.
01 Apr 08
Originally posted by twhiteheadHere is one link to the idea of laser treatment of blood:
It wouldn't cure AIDS because, as pointed out by FabianFnas, the virus is not just in the blood. However, I believe blood transfusions are sometimes used for severe cases of AIDS in order to reduce the viral load. I could be wrong, but thats what I heard.
I know of someone who has kidney failure, and she is being treated by regularly being put on an artificial kidney machine, but that is very expensive.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071101084950.htm
01 Apr 08
Originally posted by sonhouseInteresting link, indeed.
Here is one link to the idea of laser treatment of blood:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071101084950.htm
But nevertheless, they can, with this laser thing, reduce the number of viruses, but not eliminate them from the body. I.e. not cure, but delay the harm of AIDS. Like Bremzen-medizine. (What's in English?)
01 Apr 08
Originally posted by AThousandYoungit sounds good but the HIV virus live not only on the blood, it also live inside of tissues and some of them get special barriers like the central nervous system and testicles. These tissues are like sanctuaries to the hiv virus ... thats a big problem. We cannot eliminate the virus only purifying the blood.
That's one of the first things that jumped into my mind when thinking about curing AIDS. Have a tube going into the person and one coming out. The tubes go to a machine that purifies the blood outside of the body itside itself then it goes back to the body.
01 Apr 08
Originally posted by zintierivNobody is saying its a cure, just to keep it from spreading through blood. This new treatment can do that. Of course its a stop-gap measure, but nobody else has come up with ANYTHING that can kill these virulent bugs reliably, because they mutate so fast.
it sounds good but the HIV virus live not only on the blood, it also live inside of tissues and some of them get special barriers like the central nervous system and testicles. These tissues are like sanctuaries to the hiv virus ... thats a big problem. We cannot eliminate the virus only purifying the blood.
01 Apr 08
Originally posted by serigadoSeems to me when the whole race is depends on anti's to cure people's ills, then our natural defenses, our own immune system will get weaker over time. Maybe it already has. Sure, we have 'saved' millions of lives over the last 60 or 70 years since we invented pennicilin and such but it seems like all its doing looking at the big picture is to make the bugs stronger and humans weaker.
that's a good possibility. More people die in short term, but on long term, you save millions.
01 Apr 08
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouseThanks, I've briefly read it.. thought a bit misreading title for the scary one..but never mind.
Here is an old article from BBC, about 2003:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/2918423.stm
Here is the scary one:
http://discovermagazine.com/2008/mar/14-dna-pollution-may-be-spawning-killer-microbes
I've got an impression that farmers feeding antibiotics to live-stocks are responsible more or less for this havoc. Wish if we've all been vegetarian.. then we only need to worry about pesticides.
Edit: Of course it's not fair to blame farmers only, as the wide-spread use of antibiotics can be seen elsewhere.
01 Apr 08
Originally posted by sonhouseThere's no natural selection on humans anymore. Weak people survive due to medical advances and pass on their genes. Sooner or later there will be a major catastrophe (epidemiological) that will wipe out a significant percentage of population. It happens historically and periodically, and the existence of antibiotics only adds a selective pressure to the appearence of this disease.
Seems to me when the whole race is depends on anti's to cure people's ills, then our natural defenses, our own immune system will get weaker over time. Maybe it already has. Sure, we have 'saved' millions of lives over the last 60 or 70 years since we invented pennicilin and such but it seems like all its doing looking at the big picture is to make the bugs stronger and humans weaker.
I'm against administration of antibiotics in most situations. But the drug-company lobby is a big one.
02 Apr 08
Originally posted by serigadoJust like the firearms industry, the tobacco industry, the insurance industry, the last in cahoots with the drug industry. All we can do is sit back and watch the correction being made when it happens. Some bug will come out that won't respond to ANYTHING and then spread like wildfire and millions die till someone is found to be immune like the 2% of people immune to AIDS.
There's no natural selection on humans anymore. Weak people survive due to medical advances and pass on their genes. Sooner or later there will be a major catastrophe (epidemiological) that will wipe out a significant percentage of population. It happens historically and periodically, and the existence of antibiotics only adds a selective pressure to the ap ...[text shortened]... nst administration of antibiotics in most situations. But the drug-company lobby is a big one.
02 Apr 08
Originally posted by sonhousemaybe not so radical, but will happen sooner or later.
Just like the firearms industry, the tobacco industry, the insurance industry, the last in cahoots with the drug industry. All we can do is sit back and watch the correction being made when it happens. Some bug will come out that won't respond to ANYTHING and then spread like wildfire and millions die till someone is found to be immune like the 2% of people immune to AIDS.
I predict 20-30% population eradication, in worst case scenario.
02 Apr 08
Did not read all of the post however I think people need to actually realize the problem. Antibiotic soaps kill 99.9% and people say the ones that live mutate to create a worse bacteria. This is not what will happen. It will not fast forward evolution this way, only make the already resistant bacteria more plentiful. And since antibiotics kill the good bacteria as well, this is not always a good thing.
However I am worried about other uses of antibiotics. When people take antibiotics prescribed from doctors, the majority of people never take it for the required amount of time because they feel better before that time. This does not kill all of the bacteria and this is where people should be focusing on fast forwarding evolution.
02 Apr 08
Originally posted by pizzinteaAntibiotic soap does kill bacteria, but is completely unnecessary, your hands are just as clean from scrubbing with soap and water, whether the soap is antibacterial or not. If you don't believe me I can find the paper on it somewhere, but I'm lazy at 5:41 AM.
Antibiotic soaps kill 99.9% and people say the ones that live mutate to create a worse bacteria. This is not what will happen. It will not fast forward evolution this way, only make the already resistant bacteria more plentiful.
However I am worried about other uses of antibiotics. When people take antibiotics prescribed from doctors, the majority of p ...[text shortened]... ll all of the bacteria and this is where people should be focusing on fast forwarding evolution.
Not that soap is really a big worry, but adding selective pressure does "fast forward" evolution, by definition, although you are right that no new mutations are actually introduced by it.
Otherwise you are making the right point.
02 Apr 08
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouseThere are currently MRSA strains resistant to all known antibiotics and we haven't lost a significant portion of the population to it yet.
Just like the firearms industry, the tobacco industry, the insurance industry, the last in cahoots with the drug industry. All we can do is sit back and watch the correction being made when it happens. Some bug will come out that won't respond to ANYTHING and then spread like wildfire and millions die till someone is found to be immune like the 2% of people immune to AIDS.
Virulence is not the same thing as resistance, not the same as difficulty to clear, and not the same thing as morbidity/mortality.
02 Apr 08
Originally posted by sonhouseAntibiotics do not make humans weaker, unless you want to argue short term normal flora depletion. They don't replace the immune system, in any dose you actually get they are just a supplement to it. There are a ton of microbes that can't actually be cleared in most cases by the immune system alone. They save lives of the elderly and of the young all the time, who would have died without them. And this doesn't really have any impact on human selection.
Seems to me when the whole race is depends on anti's to cure people's ills, then our natural defenses, our own immune system will get weaker over time. Maybe it already has. Sure, we have 'saved' millions of lives over the last 60 or 70 years since we invented pennicilin and such but it seems like all its doing looking at the big picture is to make the bugs stronger and humans weaker.