New Knee Ligament Found (Again)

[cdcox]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

Not entirely serious (quite a bit of hyperbole) but I have long struggled with the slipshod science that goes on in the medical field. This is a near PERFECT example. Exactly HOW does something like this get "missed?"

This isn't really a terribly unique situation. This kind of arrogant assumption of "we know everything" about a particular subject (anatomy) happens ALL THE TIME in medicine. My favorite is in virology when something can't be explained and so they just make shit up. Can't explain why the AIDS virus doesn't show up for years? Oh well, umm... it's DORMANT! yeah that's it. Of course that supposition was completely wrong and yet it was held as fact without a shred of evidence. I can go on and on with examples of shoddy lazy science in the field. (yes it happens in other fields as well but none that I have seen to the degree it does here)

Uh, there was a paper published in Nature last week that said not all dormant HIV can reactivate. Is that what you are talking about or is it something else? Not sure what you are talking about when you say it doesn't go dormant (actually latent is a better term).

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Originally Posted by cdcox

Uh, there was a paper published in Nature last week that said not all dormant HIV can reactivate. Is that what you are talking about or is it something else? Not sure what you are talking about when you say it doesn't go dormant (actually latent is a better term).

In the mid 80s there was a belief that patients took a long time to display clinical signs of AIDS because HIV entered a latent period after primary infection. David Ho (the same guy who pioneered HAART and won Time's Man of the Year) ultimately found that the immune system puts up a hell of a fight for years upon years, and it is only after nearly a decade (in most individuals) that the constant assault begins to exhaust its defenses.

That was part of the reason behind the initial theraputic push called "hit it hard, hit it early."

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

In the mid 80s there was a belief that patients took a long time to display clinical signs of AIDS because HIV entered a latent period after primary infection. David Ho (the same guy who pioneered HAART and won Time's Man of the Year) ultimately found that the immune system puts up a hell of a fight for years upon years, and it is only after nearly a decade (in most individuals) that the constant assault begins to exhaust its defenses.

That was part of the reason behind the initial theraputic push called "hit it hard, hit it early."

Ok, your explanation was far better...

CDcox, ignore my post and pretend I said this.

[cdcox]

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

In the mid 80s there was a belief that patients took a long time to display clinical signs of AIDS because HIV entered a latent period after primary infection. David Ho (the same guy who pioneered HAART and won Time's Man of the Year) ultimately found that the immune system puts up a hell of a fight for years upon years, and it is only after nearly a decade (in most individuals) that the constant assault begins to exhaust its defenses.

That was part of the reason behind the initial theraputic push called "hit it hard, hit it early."

Ok. I know that HIV can incorporate its DNA into the human genome and go latent (no active virus particles) for many years. Anti-viral drugs aren't effective because there are no viruses. That DNA can come out of latency and reactivate into new active virus particles under certain conditions. The latency coupled with a propensity to mutate are the key reasons why HIV is so difficult to eradicate from the human body. I thought Austin was claiming that this model of the HIV virus had recently been disproven. I would have heard about that.

I'm not familiar all the dismissed theories of HIV from the 1980s.

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by cdcox

Uh, there was a paper published in Nature last week that said not all dormant HIV can reactivate. Is that what you are talking about or is it something else? Not sure what you are talking about when you say it doesn't go dormant (actually latent is a better term).

And yes latent is a better term and no that isn't what I was referring to. I was referring to the early (way back) assumption that HIV, once contracted, laid dormant for years before attacking the body and becoming AIDS. This of course was shown to be complete hogwash. Yet it was a working assumption for years.

And yes I read the article you mentioned and another that was bit more hopeful on the subject. I'll see if I can find it.