HIV Positive Man Cured By Stem Cell Transplant

[Chutney Daftcraft]

On the heels of World AIDS Day (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/01/nations-commemorate-aids-_n_790641.html#s196271) comes a stunning medical breakthrough: Doctors believe an HIV-positive man who underwent a stem cell transplant has been cured as a result of the procedure.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/14/hiv-cure-berlin-patient_n_796521.html

This is incredible. I never thought I would see a cure in my lifetime. They've just declared this man to be cured of his HIV. He's the only person in the world at this time with this status...

[Kensey]

There has also been some interesting research in recent years into the genetic basis for people who seem to be immune to HIV -- they have a pair of mutations in a gene controlling a particular receptor that HIV uses to bind to cells. (People with one copy instead of two are not immune, but are more resistant.)

[lar]

They basically said not to get your hopes up because it is not something that can be readily done. It is very complicated. But, it does add hope to the equation for sure.

[Chutney Daftcraft]

But it's been done. Someone who had HIV no longer has HIV. It's a miracle. I never thought I would ever see this happen.

I'm still startled by it all...

[StickonFreeze]

They basically said not to get your hopes up because it is not something that can be readily done. It is very complicated. But, it does add hope to the equation for sure.

Right. The stem cell donor has a specific and rare gene mutation that happens to mix with the HIV-positive guy's DNA. It's like winning the lottery.

[Nanuk]

OK, now maybe the researchers can quit wasting time on this lifestyle disease and focus on curing real indiscriminate medical scourges like cancer, muscular dystrophy or leukemia.

[kkrapf]

OK, now maybe the researchers can quit wasting time on this lifestyle disease and focus on curing real indiscriminate medical scourges like cancer, muscular dystrophy or leukemia.

Yeah, what a crappy lifestyle choice for all those women in Africa to breastfeed their children or have sexual relations with their legal husband and spouse.

[LFE]

Does HIV live (i.e. so you would test positive) after the host carrier dies?

[kkrapf]

Does HIV live (i.e. so you would test positive) after the host carrier dies?

Not sure. I know that the virus can't live for very long in open air. The old standby you hear is "no longer than a minute". Don't know how accurate that is, but there you go.

[LFE]

Not sure. I know that the virus can't live for very long in open air. The old standby you hear is "no longer than a minute". Don't know how accurate that is, but there you go.

Does a dead person = open air? Although you will reach room temp at some point, your blood will still be in a somewhat contained environment (unless of course your death was caused by something that caused splatter, spray or leakage <-- sorry about the graphic description... but it seem warrented for clarification.

[kemeigen]

Does a dead person = open air? Although you will reach room temp at some point, your blood will still be in a somewhat contained environment (unless of course your death was caused by something that caused splatter, spray or leakage <-- sorry about the graphic description... but it seem warrented for clarification.

no, a dead person does not = open air. the amount of time the virus can live inside and intact cadaver varies with conditions (temperature, patient viral load), anywhere from ~24 hours to up to 2 weeks. embalming fluids and fixitives will kill the virus however.

[Chutney Daftcraft]

The key here is the stem cells. They are the key that will unlock many, many cures. Let's focus on the fact that this happened in Germany for a moment...

Some people did a good job stimying stem cell research in America because it offends their delicate little fibers. What's happened is that the next level of medical breakthroughs will occur in other countries. 'The greatest country on the planet' will be on the outside looking in as we watch other countries stomp terminal diseases into Polio status.

[Nanuk]

Yeah, what a crappy lifestyle choice for all those women in Africa to breastfeed their children or have sexual relations with their legal husband and spouse.

Tragic, however I don't live in Africa, so I'd prefer to see the diseases that I listed cured since they affect people here.

Also, it's not going to matter if they develop a "cure" for HIV here. Unless it can be offered as a one-stop treatment for about $3.00 a dose, the Africans that you mention are never going to get it anyway. The only ones able to afford it are going to be the wealthy gays and drug users here in the first world. Frankly, I just don't consider them as being fair trades for the cancer patients or innocent little children who are born with--and die from--any number of fatal diseases here in this country.

[Chutney Daftcraft]

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_BtqUSG7RCA0/SeuU1_w0EeI/AAAAAAAAAcE/EJS4m2-9EJI/s400/blogger+at+the+pearly+gates.gif

[derricksonb]

OK, now maybe the researchers can quit wasting time on this lifestyle disease and focus on curing real indiscriminate medical scourges like cancer, muscular dystrophy or leukemia.

To a degree I concur as there are higher numbers of cancer patients or other childhood diseases who could benefit from stem cell research, but there's also no reason that they couldn't run testing on HIV/AIDS patients at the same time.


Yeah, what a crappy lifestyle choice for all those women in Africa to breastfeed their children or have sexual relations with their legal husband and spouse.

It could also be agrued that it was a crappy lifestyle choice for HIV+ Susie Click-Click Mombatu to produce offspring or have sexual relations period knowing she had the disease.

[Kensey]

It could also be agrued that it was a crappy lifestyle choice for HIV+ Susie Click-Click Mombatu to produce offspring or have sexual relations period knowing she had the disease.

I think kkrapf is thinking of a situation where the mother gets pregnant and infected at the same time, not knowing her husband was banging at-risk prostitutes every time he went to work away from home.

[Nanuk]

It's all about resources, Chutney. There is only a finite amount of money and research personnel. Resources shunted towards one group or cause become unavailable to the rest, and if spread too thin, than no one ever gets cured. So who exactly should we allocate our limited resources to? Please tell us, since you're so quick to criticize my assessment of affairs. How many innocent children should be denied a cure in order to save some wealthy-but-promiscuous gay guy or IV drug user?

[Kensey]

It's all about resources, Chutney. There is only a finite amount of money and research personnel. Resources shunted towards one group or cause become unavailable to the rest, and if spread too thin, than no one ever gets cured.

That presumes that somebody who will donate to HIV research will donate an equal amount to other causes if HIV research is not available -- I don't think charity is a zero-sum game that way.

[Nanuk]

Individual charitable donations make up only a small fraction of the resources allocated to curing diseases. Pharmaceutical companies and universities still account for the lion's share. And again--there's only so much.

So I wait for Chutney to tell us who should get it and who should go without.

[Jenniffer]

In the US, the yearly percentage of newly infected HIV patients who are also gay hovers around 50%.

[Nanuk]

In the US, the yearly percentage of newly infected HIV patients who are also gay hovers around 50%.

And this is relevant because...?

MY point is that any "cure" involving stem cells is going to be so elaborate and expensive that only a relatively few wealthy individuals are going to benefit from it. Is it really worth the effort and allocation of resources?

[kkrapf]

And this is relevant because...?

MY point is that any "cure" involving stem cells is going to be so elaborate and expensive that only a relatively few wealthy individuals are going to benefit from it. Is it really worth the effort and allocation of resources?

Are you under the impression that bone marrow transplants for childhood leukemia patients are cheap or commonly available? Does that mean we should stop doing them? Damn the little children, let them die.

[kkrapf]

And this is relevant because...?

MY point is that any "cure" involving stem cells is going to be so elaborate and expensive that only a relatively few wealthy individuals are going to benefit from it. Is it really worth the effort and allocation of resources?

Also, stem cell research is in its infancy. It is going to remain elaborate and expensive so long as that is the case, just as any medical breakthrough does.

Note that stem cell research has applicability to many of those diseases you actually care about.

[longleaf]

Individual charitable donations make up only a small fraction of the resources allocated to curing diseases. Pharmaceutical companies and universities still account for the lion's share. And again--there's only so much.

Actually, most research is funded by Government Grants, i.e., NIH, NSF, etc.

[Chutney Daftcraft]

It's all about resources, Chutney. There is only a finite amount of money and research personnel. Resources shunted towards one group or cause become unavailable to the rest, and if spread too thin, than no one ever gets cured. So who exactly should we allocate our limited resources to? Please tell us, since you're so quick to criticize my assessment of affairs. How many innocent children should be denied a cure in order to save some wealthy-but-promiscuous gay guy or IV drug user?

Who are you having this conversation with? I think I made my point pretty clearly when I started talking about the stem cells. The point being that we should shift a lot of resources towards stem cell research, which will help both afflictions you're discussing, and then some.

I believe that stem cells are the key to most medical innovation in the future.

[Nanuk]

Damn the little children, let them die.

But we're not talking about treatment for kids now, are we? Nice attempt to win by changing the argument, but it's apples and oranges.

However, I'll be the first one to advocate spending money to treat innocent children ahead of grown adults who infect themselves with viruses when they almost certainly knew better.

[Chutney Daftcraft]

Pharmaceutical companies are too busy developing profitable drugs. When you're a pharmaceutical company, you have more incentive to steer your R&D towards life-long treatments as opposed to cures. Treating someone with a 'cocktail' that costs thousands and thousands a year, every year (so long as they want to live)? Or curing someone for a one-time fee? It's pretty simple to figure out who we should and shouldn't trust to bring us our medical future...

[Nanuk]

Note that stem cell research has applicability to many of those diseases you actually care about.

I know that it does. And at this point, I'd like to see the research in that field focused on those diseases as much as possible.

[Nanuk]

Pharmaceutical companies are too busy developing profitable drugs. When you're a pharmaceutical company, you have more incentive to steer your R&D towards life-long treatments as opposed to cures. Treating someone with a 'cocktail' that costs thousands and thousands a year, every year (so long as they want to live)? Or curing someone for a one-time fee? It's pretty simple to figure out who we should and shouldn't trust to bring us our medical future...

So we're to assume that no one who works in the pharmaceutical industry wants to cure people? Man, that's right up there with "no one who works for the oil companies wants to see any new energy technologies developed". Why does everyone seem to have such narrow and short-sighted motives in your conspiracy-based world, fella?

[Chutney Daftcraft]

So we're to assume that no one who works in the pharmaceutical industry wants to cure people? Man, that's right up there with "no one who works for the oil companies wants to see any new energy technologies developed". Why does everyone seem to have such narrow and short-sighted motives in your conspiracy-based world, fella?

Because this is true in the real world, which is where I exist. You're the delusional one thinking the for-profit medical industry actually gives a crap about people. They care about money. What they spend in marketing far exceeds what they spend in research. It's not hard to follow the money to the motivation, which doesn't involve people taking less pills...

[Nanuk]

Now you're alleging that there's a conspiracy in the health care industry to keep people sick because making them well would somehow lead to less money? Are you serious?

For your premise to be true, we would need a finite number of sick people and potential customers. That's clearly not the case today, nor will it, I suspect, ever be.

[Jenniffer]

I don't think that way. Suffering is suffering, whether its an innocent child, an elderly woman, a disabled homeless veteran (who may have turned to the needle after the horrors he'd witnessed, or perpetrated), or whomever. I don't believe that disease is punishment or should be made a punishment through discrimination and judgment. And I don't believe that science works in a vacuum. Medical history shows that breakthroughs in one area lead to breakthroughs in other ones. It may very well be that a breakthrough in AIDS research could lead to a cure for cancer. Stranger things have happened, and letting bigotry guide scientific pursuits is never a good idea, regardless. That said, I don't have a lot of say in where the money goes. I'm only one voice. I really hope, though, that the people who make those decisions don't make them based on the idea that people who get sick as the result of a choice they made don't deserve the same relief from suffering as anyone else who is ill.

[Nanuk]

I know that a couple of people like to throw the word around as a means of claiming moral high ground, but my position has nothing to do with bigotry. It's merely about the greatest good for the greatest number. HIV and AIDS can be avoided by simple behavior and are thus completely preventable in this country; cancer and other diseases cannot and these can strike anyone at any time. Therefore, the effort should be focused on protecting everyone as opposed to merely undoing the mistakes of a few people who put themselves into trouble via bad judgment and wrongful acts.

[Kensey]

I really hope, though, that the people who make those decisions don't make them based on the idea that people who get sick as the result of a choice they made don't deserve the same relief from suffering as anyone else who is ill.

On the other hand, neither should those decisions be made according to who has the loudest voice politically. Doctors triage based on severity, and so should it be with research.


HIV and AIDS can be avoided by simple behavior and are thus completely preventable in this country; cancer and other diseases cannot and these can strike anyone at any time.

There are certain cancers that are highly correlated with certain choices, though. Do we prioritize lung cancer lower than other cancers?

[Chutney Daftcraft]

Now you're alleging that there's a conspiracy in the health care industry to keep people sick because making them well would somehow lead to less money? Are you serious?

Not at all. That's your take on what I have said, because like my sig line, you're taking what I say how you want to hear it. I am pointing out the blatantly obvious, that it is far more profitable to have someone on expensive pills/treatments for the rest of their life than it is to cure them and eliminate the need for a lifetime of expensive pills and treatments. I don't even see how that can be argued. It's really very simple.

[Nanuk]

I am pointing out the blatantly obvious, that it is far more profitable to have someone on expensive pills/treatments for the rest of their life than it is to cure them and eliminate the need for a lifetime of expensive pills and treatments. I don't even see how that can be argued. No, you're implying that everyone who works in those industries puts profits ahead of people and only looks at the short term question of "how can we continue to make money without diversifying or changing our business model to reflect new advances in medicine?" Such implications demonstrate a nearly total lack of understanding of those businesses or economics in general.
Come on now--you're smarter than that. You've obviously been reading too many of those hater posts on Huffpo.