Listen: Aids, New York Times And Researcher discussed on Politics and More Podcast
"Would take the cells out of a person with HIV, genetically manipulate them return that person sells, so they they don't need a transplant because their their own cells. But now you've altered their selves to be resistant to the. Virus? So this provides the foundation for pursuing that line of treatment. And I'm really interested in what you say about failures. And how science tends to take these leaps after big failure. Didn't you yourself as a researcher have one of these failures that now has led to one part of the progress? We're seeing now. Yes. So when I started I working on nearby allergy of the aids virus, he tried the it appeared in everyone accepted as conventional wisdom so to speak that the virus entered the immune cells through a protein on the surface of the cells called CD four. So my group developed decoy molecules like crap doors based on this CD four protein. The idea was that we would flood the bloodstream with these decoy pro. Teens and HIV would attach to them and then be eliminated, and we publish papers in nature and science was on the front of the New York Times. And we conducted the first clinical tests and people with aids, and it was a complete failure an abject failure. And it turned out that what we didn't know was that the virus has another doorway that it uses to get into immune cells. So we were providing a trap door but the virus? Just shrug that off and was able to move into the immune system and destroy it using this alternative ordeal smarter than you were much smarter than we were smarter than anyone conceived of. But it turns out that that second portal that that second door is precisely what led to the possum. Cure of this patient in London because he was given Sowell's that lack that second door. So the virus basically has no choice. It just keeps circulating circulating without the second door. It can't really enter cells. So our failure. Led"