Posted on 08/28/2005 2:14:36 PM PDT by AZLiberty
...
Is "intelligent design" a legitimate school of scientific thought? Is there something to it, or have these people been taken in by one of the most ingenious hoaxes in the history of science? Wouldn't such a hoax be impossible? No. Here's how it has been done.
...
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
I also noticed they throw in the words diversity and unity quite a bit in this textbook. They like those words. Biological 'diversity' was used much before it because a 'common' term. Dummy.
And of course AIDS/HIV has to be mentioned. Again, it was mentioned because the HIV virus mutates and that is the key to why it is so drug resistant.
11/9/98
Contact: Mitch Leslie, (650) 725-5371 or 723-6911 (mleslie@leland.stanford.edu)
EDITORS NOTE: This release coincides with publication in the Nov. 15 issue of the Journal of Clinical Investigation.
Unusual HIV Mutation
Causes Resistance to Multiple Drugs
STANFORD -- A unusual mutation, adding two extra building blocks to a key viral protein, enables the AIDS virus to resist multiple drugs, Stanford researchers have found.
Patients with this new version of HIV should consider altering their drug regimens, the researchers said. But the researchers also noted that this version of the virus turned up in only a small percentage of the 1,045 HIV-positive patients they studied.
For people carrying HIV that lacks the alteration, a change in drug regimen is not warranted, they said.
HIV is notorious for its ability to change, or mutate, and thereby evade the effects of drugs. Many drugs used to treat HIV interfere with the virus' reverse transcriptase (RT) enzyme, slowing the viral growth rate. Mutations in HIV's RT gene produce an RT enzyme uninhibited by the drugs, allowing the virus to begin growing again.
These mutations result in the exchange of one of RT's many amino-acid building blocks for another. Because such mutations typically enable the virus to resist only one specific RT-inhibiting drug, the patient can still take other RT inhibitors.
The newly identified version of HIV, however, may resist an entire class of RT-inhibiting drugs, the Stanford team found.
In studying HIV isolated from patients who had taken RT inhibitors, the researchers detected mutations resulting in the insertion of two additional amino acids into the viral RT enzyme. When they reconstructed this virus in the laboratory, they found that the insert could, by itself, confer resistance to four of the five currently licensed drugs known as "nucleoside-based" RT inhibitors.
The four drugs were AZT (zidovudine), ddI (didanosine), ddC (zalcitabine) and 3TC (lamivudine).
Moreover, the viruses with inserts isolated from patients usually had additional mutations that also enabled them to resist d4T (stavudine) -- the other licensed drug in this class -- as well as the experimental compound PMEA (adefovir).
The researchers report their findings in the Nov. 15 issue of the Journal of Clinical Investigation. The senior author is Thomas Merigan Jr., MD, Becker Professor of Medicine and director of the Center for AIDS Research at Stanford.
Surprising change
Other research teams have observed insertions in structural proteins, which make up the outer shell of the virus.
But proteins such as RT and protease serve as the machines -- rather than the structural support -- of the virus, so scientists have assumed that these workhorses would be less tolerant of drastic change.
"We were surprised to find that RT enzymes with additional amino acids were still functional, let alone resistant to RT inhibitors," said research assistant Mark Winters, the study's lead researcher.
Although the insert enabled the virus to resist most nucleoside-based RT inhibitors, it did not affect the potency of other drugs known as "non-nucleoside" RT inhibitors -- for example, nevirapine and efavirenz.
As for the anti-HIV compounds known as protease inhibitors, these drugs act on the protease enzyme rather than the RT enzyme and thus would not be affected by the insert, Winters noted.
Insertion is rare
Only about 1 percent (10 in 1,045) of the patients studied had viruses with the insert. In a few cases, the Stanford team identified the unusual virus in patients who had enrolled in clinical trials of new drug combinations. But most of the data came from individuals who had requested, through their physicians, to have their viral DNA "sequenced" to determine its genetic makeup, most likely because their current treatment regimens were failing.
The prevalence of the insert in the general population of HIV-positive individuals remains unknown, but the researchers suspect that the insert arises only in patients who have taken RT inhibitors.
"From this study it appears that the insert is not that common of an occurrence. Therefore, I don't believe that the possibility of a patient developing a virus with an insert would cause physicians to change how they initiate therapy," Winters said.
"The insert is something you should look for, and seeing it would let you realize that there are treatment options that are open to you, and [other] options that are no longer open," he added.
For five of the patients studied, the researchers had access to past blood samples and drug histories that enabled them to trace when the insert first appeared. In all of these cases they found that the insert developed during treatment with ddI or ddC, typically in combination with AZT.
Little information is available on whether other RT inhibitors can elicit insert-containing viruses, Winters said.
Additional co-authors at Stanford included research assistants Kristi Coolley, Yvette Girard and Darcy Levee, research associate Robert Shafer, MD, and associate professor of medicine David Katzenstein, MD. Collaborating on the study was Hasnah Hamdan, PhD, of Quest Diagnostics in San Juan Capistrano, Calif.
Funding came from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Hoffmann-LaRoche, the National Foundation for Cancer Research, and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.
###
Printer-friendly page Home
This document was last modified: Saturday, 10-Jan-2004 16:55:59 PST
Copyright © 2002, Stanford University School of Medicine. All rights reserved.
Congratulations. It must be nice to have a HS grad in the family.
And what is the scientific evidence for the latter?
Well, then it's about time you grew a spine and started to care. Say, that would disprove the TOE wouldn't it? Or maybe it would prove it. Or maybe it wouldn't do anything....Sigh......
Yes, and perhaps a willingness to ignore what doesn't fit, thereby taking what does fit on "faith."
Not good form, my friend. I work in R&D.
discovery.org?
It's called "Catch-22."
Actually, I know a number of engineers that are Creationists. Since engineers are not trained in science, it is easy for them to get "sucked in" to something that they really want to believe.
hrmmph! signed, an engineer.
Nor did I state that it is. Read then react. And to which "lies of creationists" and to which "creationists" do you refer?
You have offered no evidence to support the idea that people who accept evolution "get religion very quickly when times get tough."
I will wager my meager fortune that you cannot give a single example of anyone--evolutionist or not--who, when faced with danger, appeals to Darwin for help. But history is filled with folks from the most callous thugs to atheists to saints--and even scientists--who call on a higher power when trouble comes.
OTHOH, if it is fact like IC, it must be taught.
I will admit that I mutter "Jesus Christ" quite often when I read the creos posts.
And history if filled with "Christians" who do not live a Christian life but say that all that matters is that they are 'saved'.
Just an example.
Darwin's general theory remains a hypothesis. Intelligent Design is also a hypothesis.
So what do you think should be taught in a biology class? Equal parts TOE and ID? Neither?
Darwin is a dead man. It makes no sense to appeal to a dead man for help ...
The scientific community has been trying to find a cure for the common cold for as long as there has been a scientific community and still no cure. And you would have us believe that it is possible for "camera-like eye" to evolve in only 364,000 years.
I wish my faith were as strong as yours.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.