OK - A possible cure for HIV has been discovered. The correct action is to:

[Taverner]

Poll question: OK - A possible cure for HIV has been discovered. The correct action is to:

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

[ck4829]

1. Even if this itself isn't the cure, it is definitely a step in the right direction

Because as soon as a real cure is discovered, then we'll probably want to wage a full scale war on HIV on the same level as the World Health Organization's campaign against smallpox was waged.

[Taverner]

2. Yes, but there are those who say celebration is wrong

And that if we celebrate, people will stop using condoms.

It's not like when they found a snake antivenin people started playing with snakes...

[closeupready]

12. As to condoms, obviously, humans have not evolved with plastic on their penises.

So it makes sense that, in light of the desensitization caused by the plastic, sex without is sensually preferable (for many). I don't think anyone has ever argued convincingly that sex with condoms is something you do because 'it feels better'. To the contrary, persuading people to use condoms IS a challenge. The failure to make the case explains who knows how many millions of infections that are out there, i.e., people who should have used them, but didn't, because condoms make men flaccid, or they just don't want to, or impaired judgment from alcohol/drug intoxication. Leading to the ultimate premature mortality of those infected. :(

Even without HIV, there's syphillis, herpes, hepatitis, pregnancy (for heterosexuals), and who knows what else to worry about. And people still die from these illnesses - not nearly as many as HIV, no; also, complications like infertility, impaired liver functioning, etc.

So even if a cure for HIV is found, you'd continue to take risks by engaging in sexual activity without condoms.

[RetiredTrotskyite]

31. Well, the Solution Is to Keep Up Stressing Condoms....

just to keep the message out there, but this is definitely a good thing.

[Vanje]

35. Oh no!

Do not stress your condoms.
It may weaken them.

[tridim]

3. Suppress the news at all costs, because it's very bad for Big Pharma. nt

[La Lioness Priyanka]

5. have you read what the "cure" entails? if so, this would really be the biggest boom for big pharma

EVER.

[tridim]

6. Stem cell therapy is outside of big pharma for the most part.

Thanks to The President it is now federally funded and regulated.

It'll do MUCH more than a present a possible cure for AIDS in the next few years. IMO it is big pharma's worst nightmare.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

7. no its not. its more than stem cells. its also bone marrow transplats

that are preceded by rounds of chemo. all in all very profitable to pharma/doctors and almost anyone who makes money off sick people

[tridim]

9. True, but the promise of stem cells is to prevent diseases from reaching the point..

Where these other high-dollar procedures are even necessary. Stay tuned.

I've been reading a lot about this stuff. Doesn't mean I know everything, but it's very promising.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

4. yeah, asking people to be responsible in how they phrase "cure"

is CLEARLY moping and sulking :eyes:

[Taverner]

8. The way you do it, yes it is

So leave me the fuck alone, OK?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

14. no. it's not. nt

[Occulus]

22. Well, FWIW, I provided the specifics below as I understand them

but it's much, much easier to say "cure", seeing as how that's what they did.

[TheWraith]

28. That's seriously uncalled for.

Being scientifically accurate is not being a killjoy. When you're talking about matters of science, understanding the complexities involved are essential to having a real world assessment of somethings impact.

[Crunchy Frog]

11. Bone marrow transplant is not a reasonable cure.

It is grueling and often deadly in its own right. It costs hundreds of thousands of dollars. It's really only reasonable as a last ditch treatment for certain kinds of cancer. For the overwhelming majority of HIV sufferers, their best option is to continue taking a cocktail of anti-virals.

I think all avenues should be explored, but I don't think that this particular avenue is going to yield anything genuinely useful in combatting AIDS.

[Taverner]

15. What about if we synthesize the bone marrow?

There are studies going on right now

[Crunchy Frog]

17. The thing about a bone marrow transplant

is that you have to destroy the old bone marrow first. You have to zap the patient with huge doses of either chemotherapy (poison) or radiation. Enough to completely fry that person's own bone marrow. Quite a lot of the rest of the patient gets fried as well. The immune system is completely destroyed until or unless the donated marrow "takes". The treatment itself can be quite deadly. In terms of overall expense it's not reasonable even in developed countries. In the African countries where HIV is at epidemic levels, there is far less chance of it being economically viable.

So yes, even if marrow were plentiful and cheap, it would still not be a reasonable approach to treating HIV. The current anti-viral medications are quite good at keeping the disease in check and are far less harsh on the body. I think that a cure will be found someday, but I don't think this is the direction it will come from.

[closeupready]

18. If they can figure out precisely why this cures HIV, they may be able to find alternative methods

of getting there, no? At least, in theory.

[Taverner]

19. I hope to dog it will

[Crunchy Frog]

20. It probably worked because it kills ALL the immune cells in a person's body.

That's where the HIV viruses hang out so it would likely kill them too.

Sort of like killing a village in order to save it.

[Occulus]

21. They already know why it cures this strain

The donor lacked a receptor critical to the reproduction of this HIV strain.

It has been rumored for some time now that there is a gene pool in Europe that is immune to one particular HIV strain. The donor of the marrow in this case seems to have come from that population. It is thought that he (and others like him) are descendants of survivors of the Black Plague, though that may be only educated speculation.

This will no doubt lead to research in gene therapies that would (hopefully) allow a patient to take a drug that removes the receptor from their own cells. Since other strains of HIV utilize different receptors to bind to the cells, it would be ineffective against those others strains, but the fact that these receptors are so critical to the reproduction of HIV will surely lead to additional research in that direction.

[closeupready]

24. Exactly. Even leading researchers in the right direction is progress.

Remember the days when physicians thought AIDS was caused by cocaine abuse? Wow, have we come a long way.

[TheWraith]

29. CCR5-Delta32 isn't a rumor.

"It has been rumored for some time now that there is a gene pool in Europe that is immune to one particular HIV strain."

Not a rumor. You're referring to the carriers of the CCR5-Delta32 mutation. It's present in about 10% of the population of northern Europe, and some people of northern European descent. In short, it makes one more or less immune to the most common strain of HIV, although there are strains which don't require the CCR5 receptor.

The newest research strategies involve trying to employ gene therapy to "induce" the CCR5-Delta32 mutation in people who don't otherwise carry it, in the hopes that it can help the body purge itself of HIV.

[One_Life_To_Give]

13. c: Demand Stem Cell Research be Ended retroactively

We done told you that this Stem Cell stuff was an abomination! Now you've gone and done it.




:sarcasm:

[lightningandsnow]

16. I think the correct response is to be cautiously optimistic.

I'm happy a treatment with the potential to cure people has been discovered, but I'm not going to consider the war on HIV won just yet.

I mean, I was just thinking; stem-cell transplants are very dangerous, and involves the patient getting very sick before they get better. In conditions like leukemia and metabolic diseases, often it ends up not being the disease that kills the patient, but any of the number of complications you can get; infections, graft-vs-host disease, secondary cancers from full-body radiation, and many other complications. That's why it's only attempted in cases where the patient is going to die otherwise. So even if this ends up being able to cure HIV/AIDS 100% of the time? There would probably still have to be a very careful risk-benefit analysis before this is used as a treatment. I imagine many people who have lived with HIV for many years and are still in good health would probably prefer to simply stay on their medications instead of going through a very risky procedure.

[DeadEyeDyck]

23. agree

[closeupready]

25. UPDATE: Gene therapy raises hope for a future AIDS cure

>>In a bold new approach ultimately aimed at trying to cure AIDS, scientists used genetic engineering in six patients to develop blood cells that are resistant to HIV, the virus that causes the disease.

It's far too early to know if this scientific first will prove to be a cure, or even a new treatment. The research was only meant to show that, so far, it seems feasible and safe.

The concept was based on the astonishing case of an AIDS patient who seems to be cured after getting blood cells from a donor with natural immunity to HIV nearly four years ago in Berlin. Researchers are seeking a more practical way to achieve similar immunity using patients' own blood cells.

The results announced Monday at a conference in Boston left experts cautiously excited.<<

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110301/ap_on_bi_ge/us_med_aids_gene_therapy

[closeupready]

26. A very, very interesting article on the guy whose HIV was eradicated:

http://nymag.com/health/features/aids-cure-2011-6/

[TheWraith]

27. Option 3, which is to encourage everyone to exercise caution.

If I had a paycheck for every time I heard about a cure for HIV, cure for cancer, 40% efficient solar cell, radically improved battery, etcetera, I wouldn't need to work my ass off freelancing so much. Many things which are touted as revolutionary when they're lab items turn out to be much less clear cut in the real world.

[Vanje]

36. ++++++!!!

Word!

[RetiredTrotskyite]

30. I'd Go For Combination of One And Three

Celebrate and all, but also be cautious. I think it's great if this turns out to be an effective cure, but there is no reason to let down our guard when we're out there.

[Behind the Aegis]

32. The correct action is:

Recognize a stupid poll meant to denigrate those who don't adhere to your position.


What do I win?!?!

[La Lioness Priyanka]

33. ..

thank you

[thanks_imjustlurking]

34. Bingo. nt