51–60 of 71 posts
What viruses "want" is to reproduce. Killing you is an unfortunate unplanned side effect. If only we could negotiate and agree to allow them to reproduce and not kill us, we'd all get along much better.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This negotiation is rather weak since it doesn't recognise the passage of time. Once the viruses have reproduced to their satisfaction, they can renege on the deal when humans have a weaker negotiating position. That is to say, "Don't negotiate with terrorists." Fortunately the human/mammalian immune system does not typically permit this kind of deal. With a few exceptions: including HIV.
If killing you means that the pathogen can spread more rapidly, it will evolve to do so. I don't see the HIV virus gaining anything by killing the host as it depends mostly on sexual intercourse to spread. Correct me if I'm wrong, but, Ebola would have been a better example in this case, I suppose.
The plague/black death/Y pestis is another is a great example of this. It keeps its rat host just alive enough for just long enough for maximum use of the rats body. The rat then dies, which sends sends it plague-ridden fleas off to infect other rats.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
90-95% of adults had it at some point . Most people develop immunity to it and so it doesn't survive in them. I'd say the most successful virus in humans would be the common cold, given how frequently we seem to get it, although it's more of a massive family of virii.
Herpes Simplex is another example. A majority of americans are carriers.
I wonder if infecting a person with AIDS with milder form of HIV will make them better.
HIV-1 is the "HIV" we all know and fear. While HIV-1 was derived/evolved from SIV (simian immunodeficiency virus), it's actually not as similar to SIV as HIV-2, another strain.
HIV-2 is far less dangerous and transmissible in comparison to HIV-1, and doesn't exist in large quantities outside of sub-Saharan Africa. Critically, there is some new research which shows that infection with HIV-2 first provides a substantial amount of protection against later infection by HIV-1. People who were infected with HIV-2 before being infected with HIV-1 had lower viral loads and slowed disease progression in comparison to people who were infected with HIV-1 alone.
This lead the researcher giving the talk to state the extremely stunning (yet perhaps true) fact: "HIV-2 is the best vaccine against HIV-1 that we have."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If killing you means that the pathogen can spread more rapidly, it will evolve to do so. I don't see the HIV virus gaining anything by killing the host as it depends mostly on sexual intercourse to spread. Correct me if I'm wrong, but, Ebola would have been a better example in this case, I suppose.
>If killing you means that the pathogen can spread more rapidly, it will evolve to do so. The plague/black death/Y pestis is another is a great example of this. It keeps its rat host just alive enough for just long enough for maximum use of the rats body. The rat then dies, which sends sends it plague-ridden fleas off to infect other rats.
It seems that the Black Death was pneumonic as well as bubonic.
I wonder if infecting a person with AIDS with milder form of HIV will make them better.
That would imply that HIV viruses compete with each other, and this competition is able to suppress each other. This is typical with bacteria, but I don't think it happens with viruses.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Epstein-Barr virus is close to that ideal, 90-95% of adults have it. Unfortunately, it's connected with cancers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epstein%E2%80%93Barr_virus
90-95% of adults had it at some point . Most people develop immunity to it and so it doesn't survive in them. I'd say the most successful virus in humans would be the common cold, given how frequently we seem to get it, although it's more of a massive family of virii.
20 years ago, the ARV's and mixes weren't what they were 10 years ago and awareness + access to therapy also changed. Therapy initiation guidelines changed - which would directly impact time to AIDS.
Throw that statement away in relation to the meaning of the study results - except if this statement is there, it raises a concern about bias or mistakes in the study due to an insufficiently rigorous handling of the data and contexts/meaning.