Export thread
HIV cured by Stem Cells?
#1
LittleSin
LittleSin
I don't often post new articles but this one seemed huge to me.
Here we go.
Sorry for the Huffington post source but I'm not sure where to look for more info
What say you, Halforums? Is this as big as I think it is?
Here we go.
Sorry for the Huffington post source but I'm not sure where to look for more info
What say you, Halforums? Is this as big as I think it is?
#2
makare
makare
Anything that involves "cures HIV" is big to me. That would be so awesome. I know we throw the word awesome around a lot but THAT would be truly awesome.
#3
Krisken
Krisken
Absolutely remarkable. I hope these results can be replicated and verified.
#4
AshburnerX
AshburnerX
If this actually works, the anti-stem cell crowd is going to go insane, especially the religious inclined.
#5
SpecialKO
SpecialKO
Are they talking about that Berlin case a few years ago when they irradiated a guy's bone marrow and replaced it completely with bone marrow from a matching donor who also happened to have a 1-in-a-1000 genetic resistance to HIV?
If it's the same thing, it's really not a "cure" so much as 1-in-a-million lifesaver that could have just as easily killed the patient. Encouraging results to be sure, but we're still a looong way from a cure, unfortunately.
If it's the same thing, it's really not a "cure" so much as 1-in-a-million lifesaver that could have just as easily killed the patient. Encouraging results to be sure, but we're still a looong way from a cure, unfortunately.
#6
Dave
Dave
If only there were a scientist we could talk to about this....
#7
IronBrig4
If this is the big breakthrough, then this guy's quest is fulfilled.
IronBrig4
If this is the big breakthrough, then this guy's quest is fulfilled.
#8
Baerdog
Baerdog
Sorry, stuck with this guy.If only there were a scientist we could talk to about this....
#9
LittleSin
LittleSin
When is Chaz done being banned? I think he knows about this kinda thing...and where's that other guy? Darwin?
#10
AshburnerX
AshburnerX
I think he was banned for a month right around Thanksgiving... so at least two more weeks.When is Chaz done being banned? I think he knows about this kinda thing...and where's that other guy? Darwin?
#11
Krisken
Krisken
I could swear he is being unbanned on the 24th or something like that.
#12
Jiarn
Jiarn
To quote a famous genius:
"WHY ARE WE NOT FUNDING THIS?!"
"WHY ARE WE NOT FUNDING THIS?!"
#13
Dave
Dave
The 24th is indeed the date.
#14
sixpackshaker
sixpackshaker
I can just picture the gist of their argument... A Godless cure for a Godless disease. Then they would block funding and research to a greater degree.If this actually works, the anti-stem cell crowd is going to go insane, especially the religious inclined.
#15
figmentPez
figmentPez
I couldn't find in the article, is this embryonic stem cells, or stem cells created by some other means (from fat cells, testes or elsewhere)? Although I'm sure there are some who object to stem cells in general, most of those who oppose stem cells on religious grounds object to embryonic stem cells specifically.If this actually works, the anti-stem cell crowd is going to go insane, especially the religious inclined.
#16
Chibibar
I am not sure, but I read that the religious group are very against the embryonic stem cells. I am not sure on the embryonic fluid (umbilical cord) But, I'm sure a lot of people except the "devoted" people will go after the cure. There are people who are willing to just pray and hope for a cure by greater power.
Chibibar
I couldn't find in the article, is this embryonic stem cells, or stem cells created by some other means (from fat cells, testes or elsewhere)? Although I'm sure there are some who object to stem cells in general, most of those who oppose stem cells on religious grounds object to embryonic stem cells specifically.[/QUOTE]If this actually works, the anti-stem cell crowd is going to go insane, especially the religious inclined.
I am not sure, but I read that the religious group are very against the embryonic stem cells. I am not sure on the embryonic fluid (umbilical cord) But, I'm sure a lot of people except the "devoted" people will go after the cure. There are people who are willing to just pray and hope for a cure by greater power.
#17
drifter
The article in question is wrong. It was a bone marrow transplant from a donor who has a vary rare type of gene that is good at fighting hiv.[/QUOTE]
Bone marrow transplants also serve as stem cell transplants .
So no, not embryonic stem cells.
drifter
I couldn't find in the article, is this embryonic stem cells, or stem cells created by some other means (from fat cells, testes or elsewhere)? Although I'm sure there are some who object to stem cells in general, most of those who oppose stem cells on religious grounds object to embryonic stem cells specifically.[/QUOTE]If this actually works, the anti-stem cell crowd is going to go insane, especially the religious inclined.
The article in question is wrong. It was a bone marrow transplant from a donor who has a vary rare type of gene that is good at fighting hiv.[/QUOTE]
Bone marrow transplants also serve as stem cell transplants .
So no, not embryonic stem cells.
#18
Chibibar
Chibibar
wow.. Interesting stuff. I presume that bone marrow and other blood type transfer still need a proper match or the body will reject it right?
Bone marrow transplants also serve as stem cell transplants .
So no, not embryonic stem cells.
#19
sixpackshaker
sixpackshaker
So, what's the point of curing HIV to only live the rest of your days with immune suppressive drugs in your system.
#20
makare
makare
You can have sex without spreading it, HIV, now.
#21
drifter
drifter
Yes. In the link, there's a section that talks a bit about it.wow.. Interesting stuff. I presume that bone marrow and other blood type transfer still need a proper match or the body will reject it right?
#22
LittleSin
Hell, even if I didn't want sex/children I'd still just want to keep living.
LittleSin
I'm not sure I follow you on this. I'd rather be alive, able to have sex/children and take the drugs then, you know, slowly dying and unable to have sex with one I love and produce children.So, what's the point of curing HIV to only live the rest of your days with immune suppressive drugs in your system.
Hell, even if I didn't want sex/children I'd still just want to keep living.
#23
makare
jk
makare
But why...Hell, even if I didn't want sex/children I'd still just want to keep living.
jk
#24
strawman
strawman
I understand that the latest immunosuppressive drugs act more selectively than AIDS, and thus you have a better immune system on them than you do with full-blown AIDS.So, what's the point of curing HIV to only live the rest of your days with immune suppressive drugs in your system.
#25
sixpackshaker
Hell, even if I didn't want sex/children I'd still just want to keep living.[/QUOTE]
There are perfectly healthy people that have HIV going on 20 years now, in fact Magic Johnson is closing in on the 20th anniversary of his retirement.
There have been people that have done every thing on your list, the having babies is of course the hardest part of it.
sixpackshaker
I'm not sure I follow you on this. I'd rather be alive, able to have sex/children and take the drugs then, you know, slowly dying and unable to have sex with one I love and produce children.So, what's the point of curing HIV to only live the rest of your days with immune suppressive drugs in your system.
Hell, even if I didn't want sex/children I'd still just want to keep living.[/QUOTE]
There are perfectly healthy people that have HIV going on 20 years now, in fact Magic Johnson is closing in on the 20th anniversary of his retirement.
There have been people that have done every thing on your list, the having babies is of course the hardest part of it.
#26
Baerdog
Baerdog
I'm still trying to figure out where in your mind you seem to think it's preferable for somebody to have HIV than to be on immunosuppressive drugs.
#27
sixpackshaker
sixpackshaker
I did not say it was preferable, it is just the disease caused by HIV suppresses your immune system. So you cure your virus by giving yourself the disease you want to stop, through drugs.I'm still trying to figure out where in your mind you seem to think it's preferable for somebody to have HIV than to be on immunosuppressive drugs.
#28
makare
makare
Are you seriously saying it is better, or even just the same, to have a contagious disease than to NOT have a contagious disease?
#29
sixpackshaker
Compared to having a compromised immune system and dying the first time you catch the flu... or what ever.
sixpackshaker
It is just if some one is aware that they have HIV and is taking the meds, and living responsibly, there is little threat of dying from AIDS or passing the disease along.Are you seriously saying it is better, or even just the same, to have a contagious disease than to NOT have a contagious disease?
Compared to having a compromised immune system and dying the first time you catch the flu... or what ever.
#30
Baerdog
Baerdog
Not only are you downplaying the severity of HIV, but you are belittling the benefits of life-saving organ transplants. As a person with family members who have undergone organ transplants (and lived quite well after, thank you), I am insulted. What the fuck is wrong with you?
#31
strawman
The prognosis for aids is ~10 years without treatement, and 20 years with treatment.
The prognosis for most transplant types are around 15-20 years depending on a variety of factors (transplants due to cancer are lower, and transplants that involve major organs, such as the heart, have lower life expectancy due to the fact that if it fails yo die within minutes, whereas bone marrow transplant failure would not kill you immediately).
However, while immune system suppression is one common feature of both types of treatment (aids and drugs vs transplant and drugs) there are many other features of aids that are not shared by the transplant option.
So yes, it's interestingly ironic that the cure has some similarities to the disease, but one must take into account all the factors of both the disease and the cure. Focusing on one aspect is short sighted.
strawman
I did not say it was preferable, it is just the disease caused by HIV suppresses your immune system. So you cure your virus by giving yourself the disease you want to stop, through drugs.[/QUOTE]I'm still trying to figure out where in your mind you seem to think it's preferable for somebody to have HIV than to be on immunosuppressive drugs.
The prognosis for aids is ~10 years without treatement, and 20 years with treatment.
The prognosis for most transplant types are around 15-20 years depending on a variety of factors (transplants due to cancer are lower, and transplants that involve major organs, such as the heart, have lower life expectancy due to the fact that if it fails yo die within minutes, whereas bone marrow transplant failure would not kill you immediately).
However, while immune system suppression is one common feature of both types of treatment (aids and drugs vs transplant and drugs) there are many other features of aids that are not shared by the transplant option.
So yes, it's interestingly ironic that the cure has some similarities to the disease, but one must take into account all the factors of both the disease and the cure. Focusing on one aspect is short sighted.
#32
sixpackshaker
sixpackshaker
Do you read anything that you attack? You should be insulted. (of course the is not aimed at FLP)
I am playing to the irony. It is just a tidbit I read one of the articles that got me rolling down that path.
I am playing to the irony. It is just a tidbit I read one of the articles that got me rolling down that path.
#33
Baerdog
Baerdog
I do, and I am.
#34
sixpackshaker
sixpackshaker
Good.
#35
Baerdog
Baerdog
Good that I'm insulted by you? Whatever.
#36
strawman
Your statements seem to suggest that the symptoms are equivalent, but they most assuredly are not. AIDS very nearly shuts down the entire immune system, making one vulnerable to "[FONT=Verdana,Arial]a number of unusual and severe infections, cancers and debilitating illnesses, resulting in severe weight loss or wasting away, and diseases affecting the brain and central nervous system."
Typical anti-rejection drugs, while inhibiting many of the immune system responses, are not nearly so damaging.
[/FONT]
strawman
Just keep in mind that the immune system damage performed by AIDS is significantly more devastating than the immune system suppression performed by anti-rejection drugs.Do you read anything that you attack? You should be insulted. (of course the is not aimed at FLP)
I am playing to the irony. It is just a tidbit I read one of the articles that got me rolling down that path.
Your statements seem to suggest that the symptoms are equivalent, but they most assuredly are not. AIDS very nearly shuts down the entire immune system, making one vulnerable to "[FONT=Verdana,Arial]a number of unusual and severe infections, cancers and debilitating illnesses, resulting in severe weight loss or wasting away, and diseases affecting the brain and central nervous system."
Typical anti-rejection drugs, while inhibiting many of the immune system responses, are not nearly so damaging.
[/FONT]
#37
sixpackshaker
sixpackshaker
Right FLP, I knew going in that the drugs are not as severe as full blown AIDS. I just did not know how much those immune suppressive drugs have changed over the past 20 years.
You are refreshing around here. You take a topic of debate and leave it as a debate with out totally drawing on random conjecture.
You are refreshing around here. You take a topic of debate and leave it as a debate with out totally drawing on random conjecture.
#38
makare
makare
You were just not taking into consideration what your statements actually meant and how absurd they were.
#39
sixpackshaker
sixpackshaker
OK, let's play your game.
OMG that is fantastic news! HIV is not longer spread by sexual contact.You can have sex without spreading it, HIV, now.
#40
makare
Fun times.
makare
Isn't it great that those people will now be able enjoy sex without having to deal with the constant nagging terror that somehow they could infect their partner with a disease that regardless of how many meds subdue it WILL eventually take their lives!OK, let's play your game.
OMG that is fantastic news! HIV is not longer spread by sexual contact.You can have sex without spreading it, HIV, now.
Fun times.
#41
sixpackshaker
Fun times.[/QUOTE]
That is fantastic news for Africa that HIV is no longer spread by sexual contact. That should mean in a few generations that AIDS will be a thing of the past.
sixpackshaker
Isn't it great that those people will now be able enjoy sex without having to deal with the constant nagging terror that somehow they could infect their partner with a disease that regardless of how many meds subdue it WILL eventually take their lives!OK, let's play your game.
OMG that is fantastic news! HIV is not longer spread by sexual contact.You can have sex without spreading it, HIV, now.
Fun times.[/QUOTE]
That is fantastic news for Africa that HIV is no longer spread by sexual contact. That should mean in a few generations that AIDS will be a thing of the past.
#42
makare
Fun times.[/QUOTE]
That is fantastic news for Africa that HIV is no longer spread by sexual contact. That should mean in a few generations that AIDS will be a thing of the past.[/QUOTE]
What the hell are you talking about? If someone's HIV is treated and they are no longer infected they WON'T be able to spread it. That WOULD be fantastic news for Africa.
makare
Isn't it great that those people will now be able enjoy sex without having to deal with the constant nagging terror that somehow they could infect their partner with a disease that regardless of how many meds subdue it WILL eventually take their lives!OK, let's play your game.
OMG that is fantastic news! HIV is not longer spread by sexual contact.You can have sex without spreading it, HIV, now.
Fun times.[/QUOTE]
That is fantastic news for Africa that HIV is no longer spread by sexual contact. That should mean in a few generations that AIDS will be a thing of the past.[/QUOTE]
What the hell are you talking about? If someone's HIV is treated and they are no longer infected they WON'T be able to spread it. That WOULD be fantastic news for Africa.
#43
sixpackshaker
Fun times.[/QUOTE]
That is fantastic news for Africa that HIV is no longer spread by sexual contact. That should mean in a few generations that AIDS will be a thing of the past.[/QUOTE]
What the hell are you talking about? If someone's HIV is treated and they are no longer infected they WON'T be able to spread it. That WOULD be fantastic news for Africa.[/QUOTE]
Your simplistic statement means that you can be HIV positive and not spread the disease through sex. That is still the principle way the disease is spread. There is no treatment that makes you not HIV positive. This guy in the German procedure just hit a one in a billion jackpot.
sixpackshaker
Isn't it great that those people will now be able enjoy sex without having to deal with the constant nagging terror that somehow they could infect their partner with a disease that regardless of how many meds subdue it WILL eventually take their lives!OK, let's play your game.
OMG that is fantastic news! HIV is not longer spread by sexual contact.You can have sex without spreading it, HIV, now.
Fun times.[/QUOTE]
That is fantastic news for Africa that HIV is no longer spread by sexual contact. That should mean in a few generations that AIDS will be a thing of the past.[/QUOTE]
What the hell are you talking about? If someone's HIV is treated and they are no longer infected they WON'T be able to spread it. That WOULD be fantastic news for Africa.[/QUOTE]
Your simplistic statement means that you can be HIV positive and not spread the disease through sex. That is still the principle way the disease is spread. There is no treatment that makes you not HIV positive. This guy in the German procedure just hit a one in a billion jackpot.
#44
makare
makare
you said
So I responded
I have no idea where this snarky Africa tangent came from because if HIV was cured it would not be spread and it would therefore be amazing news.
which i took to mean that the HIV would be cured, you know since that is what you said.So, what's the point of curing HIV to only live the rest of your days with immune suppressive drugs in your system.
So I responded
Because to me not having worry about spreading it would definitely be a good "point" to curing it even if the person had to be on immunosupressive drugs.You can have sex without spreading it, HIV, now.
I have no idea where this snarky Africa tangent came from because if HIV was cured it would not be spread and it would therefore be amazing news.
#45
sixpackshaker
sixpackshaker
The snark is at a stand alone statement that HIV is not spread by sex. The Africa snark is to show you how out of touch that statement is.
Chemo, Radiation, Bone Marrow Transplant (with a one in a million donor,) and a lifetime of immune suppressive drugs that will mimic some of the dangers of AIDS - which can be more likely to kill you than just treating the chronic infection and living a safe lifestyle. Also you will not be immune to further exposure to the disease.
Chemo, Radiation, Bone Marrow Transplant (with a one in a million donor,) and a lifetime of immune suppressive drugs that will mimic some of the dangers of AIDS - which can be more likely to kill you than just treating the chronic infection and living a safe lifestyle. Also you will not be immune to further exposure to the disease.
#46
LittleSin
LittleSin
Six, you're coming off as being argumentative for the sake of it. I know now that my thread title is inaccurate but its still good news and I think it would make for some great research. If, in the future, some kinda transplant and immunosupressive drugs are they way to go to cure infected people I don't see whyt that's bad thing.
I also don't see why your getting all up in arms about the fact that SOME people would like to not have the possibility of infecting their partner looming over them. Condoms break, after all.
Not sure why your shitting all over us for being optimistic.
I also don't see why your getting all up in arms about the fact that SOME people would like to not have the possibility of infecting their partner looming over them. Condoms break, after all.
Not sure why your shitting all over us for being optimistic.
#47
makare
makare
People who are not infected with HIV can't spread it. That was my point about the cure. I honestly have no clue what you are talking about. If someone is cured of HIV and does not have then they can't spread it to other people.
I'm seriously bewildered here.
HIV IS spread by sex but it is certainly not spread by people who do not have the disease.
I'm seriously bewildered here.
HIV IS spread by sex but it is certainly not spread by people who do not have the disease.
#48
sixpackshaker
sixpackshaker
This last bit is for the hell of it. I am shitting on the ones that will not take a point or drag wild conjecture into what I am saying. I've played the devil's advocate my entire life, I love taking the unpopular stance and defending it.Six, you're coming off as being argumentative for the sake of it. I know now that my thread title is inaccurate but its still good news and I think it would make for some great research. If, in the future, some kinda transplant and immunosupressive drugs are they way to go to cure infected people I don't see whyt that's bad thing.
I also don't see why your getting all up in arms about the fact that SOME people would like to not have the possibility of infecting their partner looming over them. Condoms break, after all.
Not sure why your shitting all over us for being optimistic.
#49
makare
makare
Devil's advocate's still require some kind of rationale or logic though. It's not all harglegargle.
#50
sixpackshaker
again.
Chemo, Radiation, Bone Marrow Transplant (with a one in a million donor,) and a lifetime of immune suppressive drugs that will mimic some of the dangers of AIDS - which can be more likely to kill you than just treating the chronic infection and living a safe lifestyle. Also you will not be immune to further exposure to the disease.
sixpackshaker
You need to practice what you preach.Devil's advocate's still require some kind of rationale or logic though. It's not all harglegargle.
again.
Chemo, Radiation, Bone Marrow Transplant (with a one in a million donor,) and a lifetime of immune suppressive drugs that will mimic some of the dangers of AIDS - which can be more likely to kill you than just treating the chronic infection and living a safe lifestyle. Also you will not be immune to further exposure to the disease.
#51
makare
again.
Chemo, Radiation, Bone Marrow Transplant (with a one in a million donor,) and a lifetime of immune suppressive drugs that will mimic some of the dangers of AIDS - which can be more likely to kill you than just treating the chronic infection and living a safe lifestyle. Also you will not be immune to further exposure to the disease.[/QUOTE]
Does any of that change the fact that you will no longer worry about spreading it? Everything I've said has been based on the rationale that people who are cured of HIV, as in no longer have it, do not have to worry about passing it on to other people. I would rather risk my own health than the health of someone I cared for.
makare
You need to practice what you preach.Devil's advocate's still require some kind of rationale or logic though. It's not all harglegargle.
again.
Chemo, Radiation, Bone Marrow Transplant (with a one in a million donor,) and a lifetime of immune suppressive drugs that will mimic some of the dangers of AIDS - which can be more likely to kill you than just treating the chronic infection and living a safe lifestyle. Also you will not be immune to further exposure to the disease.[/QUOTE]
Does any of that change the fact that you will no longer worry about spreading it? Everything I've said has been based on the rationale that people who are cured of HIV, as in no longer have it, do not have to worry about passing it on to other people. I would rather risk my own health than the health of someone I cared for.
#52
sixpackshaker
sixpackshaker
If that cure is not putting other people at risk too, donor and medical staff that have to perform all the procedures, then sure it's worth risking that. Still it is your opinion, and it only seems to come down to sex. I am looking at quality of life. I see many people living full, healthy lives that happen to carry that virus.
The only reason this guy ended up cured was the Leukemia was killing him far faster than HIV was. I doubt many doctors will attempt such a procedure on some one that is going to live 20+ years from time of starting treatment. There are current estimates that you can live 50 years from time of first treatment.
If the patient had full blown symptoms of AIDS (i.e. had only months to 2 years left,) then a hospital might look at this cure if it could ever be replicated.
I've seen many false hope cures over the last 20 years, from full transfusions, to heat treating the blood cells, etc. and in the end the disease just seemed to bide its time to strike that patient again.
The only reason this guy ended up cured was the Leukemia was killing him far faster than HIV was. I doubt many doctors will attempt such a procedure on some one that is going to live 20+ years from time of starting treatment. There are current estimates that you can live 50 years from time of first treatment.
If the patient had full blown symptoms of AIDS (i.e. had only months to 2 years left,) then a hospital might look at this cure if it could ever be replicated.
I've seen many false hope cures over the last 20 years, from full transfusions, to heat treating the blood cells, etc. and in the end the disease just seemed to bide its time to strike that patient again.
#53
LittleSin
Backing off now.
LittleSin
I am at a loss. I don't know why I'm so angry right now. I want to be mean and belligerent, but then I'll just be seen as crazy and debates aren't won with raw crazy.Still it is your opinion, and it only seems to come down to sex.
Backing off now.
#54
CrimsonSoul
CrimsonSoul
This was SO three years ago!
#55
ThatGrinningIdiot!
ThatGrinningIdiot!
Clearly you're in favor of people of carrying around the virus, I guess it's their due punishment for having sex without being married?If that cure is not putting other people at risk too, donor and medical staff that have to perform all the procedures, then sure it's worth risking that. Still it is your opinion, and it only seems to come down to sex. I am looking at quality of life. I see many people living full, healthy lives that happen to carry that virus.
The only reason this guy ended up cured was the Leukemia was killing him far faster than HIV was. I doubt many doctors will attempt such a procedure on some one that is going to live 20+ years from time of starting treatment. There are current estimates that you can live 50 years from time of first treatment.
If the patient had full blown symptoms of AIDS (i.e. had only months to 2 years left,) then a hospital might look at this cure if it could ever be replicated.
I've seen many false hope cures over the last 20 years, from full transfusions, to heat treating the blood cells, etc. and in the end the disease just seemed to bide its time to strike that patient again.
#56
sixpackshaker
HIV has not been a death sentence in this nation for about 20 years now. If you get treated and lead a healthy lifestyle your life expectancy does not change. You get major surgery for a non-life-threatening, chronic condition and your life expectancy will plummet.
Some people here are acting like you are going to casually pass this disease around. Rough unprotected sex and sharing needles is how the disease is mostly spread now (especially in the west.) As long as you can avoid that, your friends and loved ones will be safe. If a woman absolutely, positively has to have a child, it is possible. The chance of a woman that knows that she has HIV passing it to a child while under doctor's care, is less than 1% (still a bit reckless.) But it is really good news for women that find out that they are HIV positive and pregnant at the same time.
This current accidental treatment sounds too dangerous to repeat on a person that is otherwise healthy. So I'll still stand by that current and developing treatments for HIV are safer and better for the patient than this radical technique.
---------- Post added at 03:47 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:42 AM ----------
The Africa crap I did and the picking on of Makare is that she left a poorly worded sentence hanging out there, and I gave her a pass. Until she tried getting insulting with me. Her sentence she left out there basically said that HIV is no longer being spread by sex.
sixpackshaker
Clearly you're in favor of people of carrying around the virus, I guess it's their due punishment for having sex without being married?[/QUOTE]If that cure is not putting other people at risk too, donor and medical staff that have to perform all the procedures, then sure it's worth risking that. Still it is your opinion, and it only seems to come down to sex. I am looking at quality of life. I see many people living full, healthy lives that happen to carry that virus.
The only reason this guy ended up cured was the Leukemia was killing him far faster than HIV was. I doubt many doctors will attempt such a procedure on some one that is going to live 20+ years from time of starting treatment. There are current estimates that you can live 50 years from time of first treatment.
If the patient had full blown symptoms of AIDS (i.e. had only months to 2 years left,) then a hospital might look at this cure if it could ever be replicated.
I've seen many false hope cures over the last 20 years, from full transfusions, to heat treating the blood cells, etc. and in the end the disease just seemed to bide its time to strike that patient again.
HIV has not been a death sentence in this nation for about 20 years now. If you get treated and lead a healthy lifestyle your life expectancy does not change. You get major surgery for a non-life-threatening, chronic condition and your life expectancy will plummet.
Some people here are acting like you are going to casually pass this disease around. Rough unprotected sex and sharing needles is how the disease is mostly spread now (especially in the west.) As long as you can avoid that, your friends and loved ones will be safe. If a woman absolutely, positively has to have a child, it is possible. The chance of a woman that knows that she has HIV passing it to a child while under doctor's care, is less than 1% (still a bit reckless.) But it is really good news for women that find out that they are HIV positive and pregnant at the same time.
This current accidental treatment sounds too dangerous to repeat on a person that is otherwise healthy. So I'll still stand by that current and developing treatments for HIV are safer and better for the patient than this radical technique.
---------- Post added at 03:47 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:42 AM ----------
Yes, I hope that there will be a functional cure for AIDS in my lifetime. If there will be a way to "photo-copy" that guys genes that is resistant to the spread of the infection, AWESOME.All that dirty dirty sex.
This is something that should be celebrated. A further understanding of this disease is for everyones benefit. While this event was rare and under vary specific circumstances, it is something that will lead to further research in a useful direction.
And who knows. Maybe further research in how to mimic a bone marrow transplant, without doing one, may some day also lead to further cures of various cancers.
This research is valuable and a step in the right direction.
I really don't understand what your point is RE: africa.
AND HEY, attacking MAKARE is my shtick.
The Africa crap I did and the picking on of Makare is that she left a poorly worded sentence hanging out there, and I gave her a pass. Until she tried getting insulting with me. Her sentence she left out there basically said that HIV is no longer being spread by sex.
#57
LittleSin
LittleSin
I gotta ask, what constitutes rough sex?
I'm just curious cuz one persons 'rough sex' is another persons 'nap time'.
I'm going to also restate that accidents happen, condoms break. I know this from experience.
...that may be a misplaced smiley.
I'm just curious cuz one persons 'rough sex' is another persons 'nap time'.
I'm going to also restate that accidents happen, condoms break. I know this from experience.
...that may be a misplaced smiley.
#58
CrimsonSoul
CrimsonSoul
Only if it didn't break in your mouthI gotta ask, what constitutes rough sex?
I'm just curious cuz one persons 'rough sex' is another persons 'nap time'.
I'm going to also restate that accidents happen, condoms break. I know this from experience.
...that may be a misplaced smiley.
#59
CrimsonSoul
CrimsonSoul
Either you're small or that's a really loose moth if it would fit in thereDon't put it in your moth...
#60
strawman
If you find out you have HIV (and NOT AIDS) then if you have access to the latest treatments (not available to the poor and under-insured), and you lead a healthy lifestyle, then as of 2006 (only 4 years ago) would some doctors tell you that you can expect a "normal" life expectancy, for some values of "normal" (ie, average life expectancy, not the life expectancy you had prior to becoming infected). Other doctors report that same year that HIV life expectancy was only extended to 25 or so years, from the previous 20 years.
If the virus has progressed to the point where you are considered to have AIDS, then your life expectancy, with the latest treatments, healthy lifestyle, etc, is 20 years. This is far short of a "normal" life expectancy, unless, I suppose, you contract AIDS in your mid-50's.
The number of people, even in the US and other "developed" countries who have access to, and are able to afford the insurance (or the treatment itself) for all 20+ years of the remainder of their life is actually pretty small. Imagine knowing that if you lose your job, your life is on the line, given that the treatments are $14k/year on the low side, and $20k/year on the high side.
Of course, this all assumes you live a healthy lifestyle after you find out. The reality is that if you lived a healthy lifestyle prior to becoming infected your chances of infection would have been greatly reduced. It's difficult to make a sudden lifestyle chance from "unhealthy" to "healthy", so while your assertion is true - that if everything goes perfectly, then it's possible to have a normal life expectancy - the reality is far different than the theory.
I'm not claiming that an organ transplant is better than a lifetime of antiretroviral drug therapy, but dismissing a possible treatment path (and current research topic) out of hand and passing out incorrect information does everyone a disservice.
Keep in mind that while anti-rejection drugs have drawbacks, they've been under development and testing for much longer than current HIV and AIDS therapies, and they may be more available, and cheaper than today's common HIV and AIDS treatments.
But don't worry, this is an interesting research topic, and it's not going to be the preferred treatment path for HIV/AIDS for a long time, if ever.
strawman
Source please.HIV has not been a death sentence in this nation for about 20 years now. If you get treated and lead a healthy lifestyle your life expectancy does not change.
If you find out you have HIV (and NOT AIDS) then if you have access to the latest treatments (not available to the poor and under-insured), and you lead a healthy lifestyle, then as of 2006 (only 4 years ago) would some doctors tell you that you can expect a "normal" life expectancy, for some values of "normal" (ie, average life expectancy, not the life expectancy you had prior to becoming infected). Other doctors report that same year that HIV life expectancy was only extended to 25 or so years, from the previous 20 years.
If the virus has progressed to the point where you are considered to have AIDS, then your life expectancy, with the latest treatments, healthy lifestyle, etc, is 20 years. This is far short of a "normal" life expectancy, unless, I suppose, you contract AIDS in your mid-50's.
The number of people, even in the US and other "developed" countries who have access to, and are able to afford the insurance (or the treatment itself) for all 20+ years of the remainder of their life is actually pretty small. Imagine knowing that if you lose your job, your life is on the line, given that the treatments are $14k/year on the low side, and $20k/year on the high side.
Of course, this all assumes you live a healthy lifestyle after you find out. The reality is that if you lived a healthy lifestyle prior to becoming infected your chances of infection would have been greatly reduced. It's difficult to make a sudden lifestyle chance from "unhealthy" to "healthy", so while your assertion is true - that if everything goes perfectly, then it's possible to have a normal life expectancy - the reality is far different than the theory.
I'm not claiming that an organ transplant is better than a lifetime of antiretroviral drug therapy, but dismissing a possible treatment path (and current research topic) out of hand and passing out incorrect information does everyone a disservice.
Keep in mind that while anti-rejection drugs have drawbacks, they've been under development and testing for much longer than current HIV and AIDS therapies, and they may be more available, and cheaper than today's common HIV and AIDS treatments.
But don't worry, this is an interesting research topic, and it's not going to be the preferred treatment path for HIV/AIDS for a long time, if ever.
#61
sixpackshaker
sixpackshaker
Hiv Positive | Living With Hiv Ads Life Expectancy
HIV Life Expectancy Study Published - pdf attached - about 19.5 to 30 years this is for all HIV diagnosis, not just those receiving treatment.
Life Expectancy After HIV Infection: Getting Better All the Time - MSN Health - AIDS/HIV - Harvard Medical School calls HIV a chronic condition if treated. Also life expectancy for AIDS if treated is now up to 12 years.
HIV - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
HIV Life Expectancy Study Published - pdf attached - about 19.5 to 30 years this is for all HIV diagnosis, not just those receiving treatment.
Life Expectancy After HIV Infection: Getting Better All the Time - MSN Health - AIDS/HIV - Harvard Medical School calls HIV a chronic condition if treated. Also life expectancy for AIDS if treated is now up to 12 years.
HIV - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
One study suggests the average life expectancy of an HIV infected individual is 32 years from the time of infection if treatment is started when the CD4 count is 350/µL.[132] Life expectancy is further enhanced if antiretroviral therapy is initiated before the CD4 count falls below 500/µL.[29]
#62
sixpackshaker
sixpackshaker
The life expectancy has increased 25 years by your article, FLP. So add that to the 7-12 years it was at the first of the epidemic and you are getting close to normal life expectancies.
#63
sixpackshaker
sixpackshaker
HIV in the UK still cuts 13 years off life expectancy: late testing is the main reason / Treatment / Global HIV News / European AIDS Treatment Group - Eatg
In England, if you are diagnosed at 20 today, you can expect to live to 66. This study ruled out the healthier people with HIV (the most likely to live a long life) and intravenous drug users (the most likely to die within months.) But it still cuts 13 years off of your life.
In England, if you are diagnosed at 20 today, you can expect to live to 66. This study ruled out the healthier people with HIV (the most likely to live a long life) and intravenous drug users (the most likely to die within months.) But it still cuts 13 years off of your life.
Life expectancies continue to improve, however. For people diagnosed with HIV during 2006-08 who have maintained a CD4 count of over 200, life expectancy at age 20 is now equal to that in the general population.
Margaret May said that if everyone got diagnosed with a CD4 count of over 200, this would improve life expectancies by ten years.