OT: Has My School Developed Cure for HIV?

[Logan]

Very preliminary. Have a friend who works for RUInfo (a service you can call to get any phone numbers, office locations, etc. around Rutgers), and he is saying they are getting tons of calls from people at Fox, CNN, etc about this.

http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/36375.htm

RUTGERS CLAIMS RX KILLS HIV


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Email Archives
Print Reprint



December 13, 2004 -- Researchers at Rutgers University in Piscataway, N.J., have developed a trio of drugs they believe can destroy HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, according to a medical journal report.
The drugs, called DAPYs, mimic the virus by changing shape, which enables them to interfere with the way HIV attacks the immune system.

Tests conducted in conjunction with Johnson & Johnson have shown the drugs to be easily absorbed with minimal side effects.

They also can be taken in one pill, in contrast to the drug cocktails currently taken by many AIDS patients.

A research team led by Rutgers chemist Eddy Arnold prepublished details of the most promising of the three drugs, known as R278474, last month in the electronic edition of the Journal of Medicinal Chemistry.

The research has targeted reverse transcriptase, a submiscroscopic protein composed of two coiled chains of amino acids. It is considered HIV's key protein.

"Reverse transcriptase is very important in the biology of AIDS," said Stephen Smith, the head of the department of infectious diseases at St. Michael's Medical Center in Newark.

"If you can really inhibit reverse transcriptase, you can stop AIDS."

The optimism about R278474 stems from its potential to interfere with an enzyme that the virus needs to copy and insert itself into a human cell.

[flere-imsaho]

Wow. If true, those researchers are going to be very, very wealthy.

[KevinNU7]

I'm rich bitch!

[Klinglerware]

These "breakthroughs" almost never pan out after clinical trials are complete, but here's hoping that it works out. It would be quite a coup for Rutgers if it does work out, something like this could really help restore a lot of the luster that RU lost in the 90s...

[moriarty]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Wow. If true, those researchers are going to be very, very wealthy.

Most likely the researchers were funded by some drug company that owns the rights to all patents. Maybe they can write a nice book.

[CraigSca]

I would buy a book about inhibiting reverse transcriptase, a submiscroscopic protein composed of two coiled chains of amino acids, if one were available.

[miked]

Universities own the rights to all patents filed while you are there. Most like Rutgers has licensed the patent out to some drug company that was interested in the drug to recoup their filing fees. After that, even if the drug goes to clinical trials and becomes successful, I think the University only gets like 1-2% of the $$. And I don't know how the University divides the funds. Here at BWH, researchers get 25%, the lab gets 25%, the dept. gets 25% and the hospital gets 25%...of the 1-2%. So if it's successful, they might see a pretty penny, but most likely not for many many years.

[Franklinnoble]

Nice.

But Cancer kills about 100 times as many people as AIDS every year in this country. I think our research dollars need to be more prudently spent.

[MizzouRah]

That would be amazing if this were true.


Todd

[Franklinnoble]

Originally Posted by heybrad

So dont fund any other drug research until we've cured Cancer? I'm sorry, but thats just stupid.

I'm not saying that. But AIDS/HIV research gets a hugely disproportionate amount of funding in this country relative to cancer. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but if you want, I'll dig around and share them here.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

Nice.

But Cancer kills about 100 times as many people as AIDS every year in this country. I think our research dollars need to be more prudently spent.

Lots of food for thought here, but one positive side effect of HIV research is that a lot of it, by its nature, is also anti-viral research generally. There are a lot of viral diseases for which we have treatments now that we would not if we had not researched AIDS/HIV so much.

Also, I would guess that worldwide AIDS/HIV is a much bigger problem than cancer, but I could be wrong.

Either way--any breakthrough on curing any disease is a good thing.

[heybrad]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

Nice.

But Cancer kills about 100 times as many people as AIDS every year in this country. I think our research dollars need to be more prudently spent.

So dont fund any other drug research until we've cured Cancer? I'm sorry, but thats just stupid.

[Franklinnoble]

dola... I'm getting really frickin' tired of this board screwing up the order of the posts. Can't this be fixed?

[Franklinnoble]

Originally Posted by heybrad

I would be curious to see if its funding from the government as opposed to private funding. I give a lot to AIDS charities because it directly affects my family. Should I stop and give to Cancer charities?

That's an interesting point.

See, I've known several people who have died from Cancer, so I'm exactly the opposite. When I have a moment, I'll poke around and see what I can find.

[heybrad]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

I'm not saying that. But AIDS/HIV research gets a hugely disproportionate amount of funding in this country relative to cancer. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but if you want, I'll dig around and share them here.

I would be curious to see if its funding from the government as opposed to private funding. I give a lot to AIDS charities because it directly affects my family. Should I stop and give to Cancer charities?

[heybrad]

First off... Franklin is right. This who is quoting who and who's post is on top stuff really screws with a good discussion.

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

That's an interesting point.

See, I've known several people who have died from Cancer, so I'm exactly the opposite. When I have a moment, I'll poke around and see what I can find.

I've known people who have died from cancer as well. I just dont see how progress in stopping a deadly disease should be met with trying to convince people that its not worth it because there are other diseases out there.

This can only be good news.

[ISiddiqui]

Anyone else carrying this story?

Aye, that news makes this alumnist proud. Now take money from the football team and put it into research .

[ISiddiqui]

Oh, and about AIDS v. Cancer. AIDS worldwide is a much bigger problem than it is in the US. The entire continent of Africa is crippled because of AIDS. The quicker we find a cure, the quicker a good portion of the world's population can get back on its feet.

[vex]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Oh, and about AIDS v. Cancer. AIDS worldwide is a much bigger problem than it is in the US. The entire continent of Africa is crippled because of AIDS. The quicker we find a cure, the quicker a good portion of the world's population can get back on its feet.

The cure would probably be so expensive that the African nations probably couldn't afford it.

[panerd]

One can argue this all they want, but the funding for HIV/AIDS is largely disproportional due to the advocacy groups and politicians wanting to appease those groups. Not trying to start an anti-gay thread, or claim that AIDS is a gay disease, or that it isn't important to find a cure for. But look at the numbers sometime. AIDS is a "popular" cause this is very disproportionably funded as compared to other deadlier diseases.

[ISiddiqui]

If it destroys HIV, international organizations or countries will find a way to get it to them.

[cthomer5000]

take that, Syracuse!

[miked]

HIV comes from a virus that can be pinpointed...there are tons of causes of cancer. HIV/AIDS will be easier to cure because of that fact. I'd be willing to bet that much more money is being spent by the NIH (and private companies for that matter) on cancer research than AIDS research. It's simple...the majority of people who have cancer can afford to pay good money to cure it...the majority of people who have AIDS have neither the money or in most cases the desire to cure it.

Not being inflammatory, they are both problems. But the fact that companies spend millions upon millions of dollars researching cures means they want their money back plus some, so there is great reluctance considering the nature of things in Africa today (people can't afford it, many places there is widespread belief that AIDS can be cured by sleeping with virigins and other similar procedures). I was reading somewhere that in some villages, people really believe things like this to be true.

[moriarty]

Not to mention that AIDS Is transmittable whereas cancer is not. Carrying it out to it's extreme, AIDs could exterminate the population.

Whether or not this is truly feasible, it creates a 'fear' factor that compels people to spend and donate more money to aids than other killers like cancer.

[miked]

I got some numbers on cancer research, but didn't have time to look at HIV/AIDS funding. The NCI's budget for 2004 was 4.7 billion dollars...and that's just public money.

[Eaglesfan27]

I went to medical school at Rutgers in Piscataway (well actually it's called UMDNJ-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, but it was on Rutgers campus) and I remember getting a lecture by the guy that is supposed to be the lead investigator. He was freaking brilliant. It'll be awesome if this pans out.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by miked

Universities own the rights to all patents filed while you are there. Most like Rutgers has licensed the patent out to some drug company that was interested in the drug to recoup their filing fees. After that, even if the drug goes to clinical trials and becomes successful, I think the University only gets like 1-2% of the $$. And I don't know how the University divides the funds. Here at BWH, researchers get 25%, the lab gets 25%, the dept. gets 25% and the hospital gets 25%...of the 1-2%. So if it's successful, they might see a pretty penny, but most likely not for many many years.

With the amount of drug companies in the area (pretty sure NJ is #1 in that regard), I wouldn't be surprised if one of them was in on it. Merck, Pfizer, GSK are huge recruiters here and are responsible for many of the research programs at UMDNJ (an unofficial part of RU, as Eagles pointed out). Hell, J&J's headquarters are on our campus.

[miked]

Yup, I went there and worked at J&J my Senior year in Skillman. Definitely lots of hands in the pockets.

[SunDancer]

But cancer comes in so many forms....

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by moriarty

Not to mention that AIDS Is transmittable whereas cancer is not. Carrying it out to it's extreme, AIDs could exterminate the population.

Whether or not this is truly feasible, it creates a 'fear' factor that compels people to spend and donate more money to aids than other killers like cancer.

Not unless it becomes airborne because unless you've missed every health class since about 1990, it's fairly avoidable (minus the low proportion of cases in the blood supply).

But I will agree that what separates cancer from a more "trendy" cause like curing cancer is that, well, cancer strikes older people in general whereas HIV strikes (quasi) indiscriminately: old and young alike. If you cure something that afflicts and 80 year old, they will probably, well, die of something else soon because our bodies just aren't made to last much longer than that.

SI

[SunDancer]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

But I will agree that what separates cancer from a more "trendy" cause like curing cancer is that, well, cancer strikes older people in general whereas HIV strikes (quasi) indiscriminately: old and young alike. If you cure something that afflicts and 80 year old, they will probably, well, die of something else soon because our bodies just aren't made to last much longer than that.

SI

Cancer strikes older people? Try telling St. Jude Research Hospital that.

[Franklinnoble]

Originally Posted by SunDancer

Cancer strikes older people? Try telling St. Jude Research Hospital that.

Yeah, no kidding. My best friend died of cancer at the ripe old age of 25.

[sterlingice]

Yes, yes, and I can cite examples of older people getting HIV. The point is that predominantly cancer is thought to afflict older people. Thank you for trying to turn this personal while missing the entire point of my post.

SI

[SunDancer]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Yes, yes, and I can cite examples of older people getting HIV. The point is that predominantly cancer is thought to afflict older people. Thank you for trying to turn this personal while missing the entire point of my post.

SI

I wasn't trying to make it personal (not even sure where that came from). I was just saying that cancer affects everyone. Maybe certain kinds of cancer might affect older people (maybe smoking-related), but cancer effects everyone.

[Hurst2112]

I am glad to hear this. I hear you can catch that AIDS shit by kissing and shaking hands with a homo, or using the same phone as them.





























BLATENT SARCASM HERE!!!!!!

[Mr. Wednesday]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

But Cancer kills about 100 times as many people as AIDS every year in this country. I think our research dollars need to be more prudently spent.

But Cancer is not one disease. It's a classification that encompasses a host of them, some having very different causes and treatments from others.

[SunDancer]

Originally Posted by Mr. Wednesday

But Cancer is not one disease. It's a classification that encompasses a host of them, some having very different causes and treatments from others.

Excellent point I've been trying to make.