Stem cells have cured an HIV+ patient
- Thread starter TragicHero84
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I read this last year, and I'm only cautiously optimistic, and here's why:
While the main targets of infection of HIV are immune cells, which would need to be almost completely eradicated by chemotherapy prior to marrow transplantation in order to prevent persistence of leukemia, there are other cell types that can be infected.
Depending on how long the patient had been infected, there could be other tissues which still harbor infection. These tissues have a relatively slow rate of replication and cell turnover, which would result in a low, possibly undetectable, viral load.
While the traditional opportunistic infections (AIDS) would not occur in this situation, due to the donor cells' resistance, some of the AIDS-associated illnesses that are due to direct viral effect may. A few examples include progressive multifocal leucoencephalopathy, HIV nephropathy, and AIDS dementia complex. None of these illnesses have been definitively linked to an opportunistic infection, and they are believed to occur due to the action of cell types which are relatively long-lived and slowly-replicating (read: resistant to chemotherapy).
This patient is certainly a breakthrough in the study of the virus and associated illnesses, but until he's been followed for years (possibly decades) after this treatment, we won't know whether he'll eventually develop complications of infection. Even if he lives a long, HIV-associated disease-free life after this, marrow eradication/transplantation will probably never really be an economically viable alternative to traditional HAART therapy. It's not even a reasonable alternative in a "money is no object" scenario unless we just happen upon a way to procure large amounts of CCR-5 negative marrow of various HLA types.
tl;dr Encouraging, but potentially merely anecdotal, story. It may guide future research, but this particular case is unlikely to lead to a widely available cure during the lifetime of anyone reading this.
While the main targets of infection of HIV are immune cells, which would need to be almost completely eradicated by chemotherapy prior to marrow transplantation in order to prevent persistence of leukemia, there are other cell types that can be infected.
Depending on how long the patient had been infected, there could be other tissues which still harbor infection. These tissues have a relatively slow rate of replication and cell turnover, which would result in a low, possibly undetectable, viral load.
While the traditional opportunistic infections (AIDS) would not occur in this situation, due to the donor cells' resistance, some of the AIDS-associated illnesses that are due to direct viral effect may. A few examples include progressive multifocal leucoencephalopathy, HIV nephropathy, and AIDS dementia complex. None of these illnesses have been definitively linked to an opportunistic infection, and they are believed to occur due to the action of cell types which are relatively long-lived and slowly-replicating (read: resistant to chemotherapy).
This patient is certainly a breakthrough in the study of the virus and associated illnesses, but until he's been followed for years (possibly decades) after this treatment, we won't know whether he'll eventually develop complications of infection. Even if he lives a long, HIV-associated disease-free life after this, marrow eradication/transplantation will probably never really be an economically viable alternative to traditional HAART therapy. It's not even a reasonable alternative in a "money is no object" scenario unless we just happen upon a way to procure large amounts of CCR-5 negative marrow of various HLA types.
tl;dr Encouraging, but potentially merely anecdotal, story. It may guide future research, but this particular case is unlikely to lead to a widely available cure during the lifetime of anyone reading this.
Yes, but the problem is that they mostly will see it as all the same. Kinda like how people who are extremely religious will refuse to take medicine and will instead pray to get better. They don't want to use anything like that due to their beliefs.Eumersian said:
And also there's the problem that most people against stem cell research seem to think that fetuses are aborted for the research :/
Nor am I. What makes this problem (the stem cell not being legal problem, not the "we're apparently arguing about this" problem) is that it seems to have very little to do with real morality. Believing in God is not stupid, and neither is feeling like a baby has a soul. It is what it is. But boiled down, religious institutions are against medicine as a concept, because it "subverts God's will." Many people are a member of this institution in their own personal lives. They aren't the problem. The problem is the people in the institution who decide what they feel and believe needs to be in OUR lives as well. And those people are, by and large, religious. I'm sure there's a venn diagram just aching to be made here to visually illustrate my point, but I think I've explained it clearly enough. I'm not a religious person, myself. I don't exclude the possibility of God, but I don't think the structure of religion is particularly relevant to him or her or it. That's my own personal view. My problem has NEVER been with religious people. My problem has ALWAYS been with religious institutions and the people behind their machinations.Julianking93 said:
whenever stem cells are mentioned, this is what i think of. granted there is the whole ethical issue about using the foetus' for it but if it can cure stuff like that and give affected people a better life, not just those directly affected by something like a stroke but their family will be affected by it too, then it's worth itThe Rockerfly said:
Mostly people get angry at embryonic stem cell research. People find it immoral and they believe that it isn't successful enough to bother pursuing. I don't think stem cells in general are as big of a problem. Everyone knows they can do a lot of good. That's good, because stem cells can be taken from different sources. Honestly I thought it stopped being an issue. From what I understand the stem cells used in this case were not embryonic, so the critics aren't likely to change their minds.Julianking93 said:
The distinction is only there because non-religious people get lumped in with the religious people who are fighting for the same thing. There may be different reasoning and different scales but that doesn't change the fact they are both against the same thing. If a person feels strongly about something they will campaign against it with whoever they can get. The only differences between the two parties is that non-religious people are a minority compared to the religious.TaboriHK said:
I'm pretty sure those campaigning against it that aren't religious and are against it because they feel it is wrong to abort a child, because it is already alive, rather than it tampering with God's work, wouldn't want to be called religious campaigners. Just because they are in the minority of people campaigning doesn't mean they aren't there.
You know....if we keep curing all natural diseases Mother Nature's gonna just throw up her arms, yell "FUCK IT!" and start using natural disasters to thin out humanity.
I might if I ejaculated fertilized embryos capable of cellular proliferation and differentiation into a fully-formed human. Alas, I only squirt haploid spermatozoa. My wife also only ovulates haploid eggs. I guess your testes operate differently than mine.TomLikesGuitar said:
I'm not opposed to stem cell research. In fact, I think that we should be funding it... heavily. But you do realize that you're basically suggesting that people shouldn't be sad when a woman miscarries, right? Go tell a woman who miscarried that her grief is over the death of a "god damn embryo" that she shouldn't feel compassion for. Let me know how that turns out. I'll foot the hospital bill.
Well that's easy: It was gods will that he have HIV, because he was probably a sinner afflicted with "the gay".Julianking93 said:
Basically any argument from somebody like that comes down to "BECAUSE GOD."
Sad thing is, you just know that's somebodies opinion out there.
Anyway, hooray for this guy, hopefully it can lead to some breakthroughs.
That's what I mean. The religious people who believe the use of stem cells are wrong are typically the ones who will try to force their opinion on everyone else. That's the main issue here. Not believing in a God, but believing in it to such an extent that it obscures your view of the world and leads you to be a total prick to everyone who doesn't agree with you 100% of the time.TaboriHK said:
If you couldn't tell already, I'm an atheist and in all honesty, I don't really see the good religion can do for people, but my lack of religious beliefs don't have anything to do with my opinion on this matter... well, they kinda do, but you know what I mean.
I don't try to force an opinion on anyone and I take issue with anyone that does, religious or not and I will especially take issue with it if it harms another in the process.
Right but this is where numbers come into play. Nonreligious and religious types can have the same desire to change policy. But religious types are in a much better position in terms of resources and organization to start groups that WILL affect policy, not just complain about it. An atheist against this could print flyers or start a website, but a church can reach out to a built-in community and do 95% of the work for them by creating form letters for them to mail out or sign. Only organizations actually get anything done in this country, for better or worse. Individuals with passion can only get so far, and no non-religious group will approach the kind of resources any major denomination's chapters could summon very easily. It's religious institutions that can create a campaign from nothingness to back in the first place.The Unworthy Gentleman said:
The funny thing is that you can refute that by simply saying "If God didn't want us using them, why did he give us stem cells?"Diligent said:
That was my initial point, though I incorrectly assumed that people would make the distinction. Religion in and of itself is not necessarily a bad thing. It just tends to quite often propagate ignorance and intolerance, which IS a bad thing. I personally find that a thousands-year old book makes for fascinating mythology and little more. The bible was not written by people who believed in women as equals, that homosexuality is okay, or that questioning the system is a good thing. And because of that, it is irrelevant to my life. But some people take other things from it that I don't that does benefit them, and there's nothing wrong with that.Julianking93 said:
While this is true it will become a massive deal when controlling and improving growth of stem cell cultures becomes more advanced. And then mass production will become a possibility of certain cultures (such as this HIV resistant donor) can be mass produced.Flishiz said:
I'm really glad my uni course has done a lot on HIV and other infections, as I can actually understand all the medical jargon in the OP.
I may not agree with you completely on that but I'm glad we at least understand each other now.TaboriHK said:
Religion isn't the problem here. The problem is people who take things too literally and who aren't stable enough to take care of themselves, let alone tell other people how to live. That's the biggest problem I have here. Not that I hate religion or hate God or anything like that because I don't. What I can't stand are the types that act like they know what's best because of what a book tells them to do and the second there is even a slight threat of that being taken away, they act out in protest, anger and sometimes violence.