Man appears free of HIV after stem cell transplant

reply to post by miriam0566


miriam....your courage is commendable.

YES!! I think that research into stem-cells shojld carry forward....but, even IF a person is against abortion....ermmmm....sometimes pregancies fail. We use the term -mis-carriage-....it is a euphamism to help ease the pain.

BUT, IF I, as an Adult, can agree to donate my vital organs in the event of my death....could not the grieving parents do the same? In order to help someone else???

This is NOT about aborting babies JUST to harvest stem cells!!! Although, that is what some would like you to believe.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
This is NOT about aborting babies JUST to harvest stem cells!!! Although, that is what some would like you to believe.

no i understand that, and even if abortion was banned, there would still be miscarriages..

so i dont understand what the argument is. i dont understand what the problem is

*hint hint i want someone who disagrees with stem cell research to come into the thread and explain this to me.

to think that i might die because a viable treatment couldnt be developed in enough time because and entire group of people dont understand what the h^ll they are protesting about. it makes me.... angry to say the least

reply to post by miriam0566


miriam....I am not the one to do what you ask, to argue AGAINST stem cell research.

In fact, I cannot understand how ANYONE could argue that point, knowing that the research could save YOUR life! And, another untold millions of lives....

So far, from what friends I have left, there are combinations of drugs that keep the virus at bay....and, these drugs are getting good, so that most people's T-cell count stays high, and there are not many side-effects.

Meaning, a nearly normal life for HIV-infected people. I hope this is the case for you as well, 'miriam'.

As a Gay man who lived in the 'closet' during the 1980s, when HIV was just beginning to rear its ugly head, my lack of promiscuity spared me.

As most viruses, HIV cannot live long outside of the host organism.

It travels, or is 'transmitted', directly into the bloodstream from semen. Or, alternatively, from blood to blood directly. NOT by saliva....as far as research I've read indicates.

As with any viral infection, some may have natural immunity....since HIV is a 'retro-virus' it defies definition....I know, an oxymoron. What I've read indicates that there is a 'cousin' to HIV, called 'SIV'....seems it lives in some apes, and is benign. Indicating that, in the long term, this virus MAY mutate in such a way as to not allow its hosts to die....

Sorry, this is how Nature works....it doesn't make it easier to lose loved ones. It's just, in the GRAND scheme of things (if there IS such a thing) every organism strives to live....and sometimes, they kill their hosts in the process. It's not malicious, it is just biology.

Think....Bubonic Plague, centuries ago....before the scientific understanding of bacterial infections....just as tragic as today's 'plagues'...

For 'miriam', again.....I have a roommate, and another close friend, both HIV infected, and on drug 'cocktails' that keep their T-cell counts up!!

As long as T-cells are good, the infection is held back. Works about the same with the 'flu', or just about any virus....except, maybe....herpes. NOW, that scares me!!!

ive had it for many years so i know all this, but thank you for trying to help.

the problem is my t-cell count has been lowering for quite some time now (315 now). im technically in stage 3 though i seem to be reasonably healthy (despite the fact that im always tired all the time and that i get sick at the drop of a hat)

Originally posted by miriam0566
reply to post by Quazze

 

so essentially if bush was following a christian agenda, there was no need to ban stem cell research altogether, he could have just regulated how it was harvested right?

so why ban it entirely?

He didn't ban stem cell research. He vetoed the federal funding of it.

reply to post by stevegmu


Which is essentially the same thing. The lack of funding effectively put the brakes on research in this country all together. All the research going on was pretty much happening in Europe, we wanted to be able to do our own research here and compete, but Bush said no. And that was that. 8 years of falling behind. Just like education(Both scholarly and sexual), medicine, social services, and a whole host of other things that set us back behind the rest of the world. In education we're like 40th. Medical care is lower than even Cuba.

And now we have a problem with our economy because of his meddling with it like it was just another thing. We saw MUCH high taxes during his administration...Well, corporate America didn't. And Now we've passed the buck onto Obama, who is just a slightly darker version of him.

The AIDS virus is trivial. It can disappear with newborns and then reappear.. I don't trust it. Doesn't it share the protein coat as Ebola? It's manufactured in my eyes.. With that being said maybe a cure can be manufactured.

reply to post by miriam0566


Right wing christians don't like the idea of humans playing god. They also don't like the pharma companies going out of business.

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by stevegmu

 

Which is essentially the same thing. The lack of funding effectively put the brakes on research in this country all together. All the research going on was pretty much happening in Europe, we wanted to be able to do our own research here and compete, but Bush said no. And that was that. 8 years of falling behind. Just like education(Both scholarly and sexual), medicine, social services, and a whole host of other things that set us back behind the rest of the world. In education we're like 40th. Medical care is lower than even Cuba.

And now we have a problem with our economy because of his meddling with it like it was just another thing. We saw MUCH high taxes during his administration...Well, corporate America didn't. And Now we've passed the buck onto Obama, who is just a slightly darker version of him.

If stem-cell research were so promising, I imagine there would be plenty of start-ups flush with money. After all, a treatment costs, what, $100000? Why should I pay for it?
If Europe is doing research, we don't have to. They can fund and perfect the technology, then American companies can buy a license or patent to use their techniques. Saved us a bunch of money.

Wow, you guys just bash President Bush in every thread. Is there a problem in the world you don't think he is responsible for?

reply to post by stevegmu


No there is he nothing is not responsible for.. Not only has he masterminded everything negative he is also the most ignorant person alive all at the same time.. sarcasm... I agree it's ridiculous.. He did a lot for the AIDS movement. Anyone who disagrees tooooo liberal.

[edit on 13-2-2009 by etombo]

Originally posted by miriam0566

to think that i might die because a viable treatment couldnt be developed in enough time because and entire group of people dont understand what the h^ll they are protesting about. it makes me.... angry to say the least

Here's a link to a New York Times article from November that describes an HIV cure post-stem-cell-transplant also.

The big problem with this as a cure for AIDS is that 10-30% of patients die during the procedure, which requires completely wiping out the immune system (including bone marrow) before the transplant. So it's really only been used for patients with cancers that are treated by stem cell transplant anyway.

I think that the Bush administration actually only banned federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, so researchers were still free to use cord blood and adult stem cells in research. But even that limitation set stem cell research in the states back severely, not so much because of the limitation itself as because of the political ramifications.

The problem is that as I understand it, it's key to get stem cells that are as undifferentiated as possible and that have been through as few cell divisions as possible. So embryonic stem cells are preferred, but they're working on ways to make adult/placental/umbilical cells more flexible.

reply to post by stevegmu


steve....he is "FORMER" President Bush!!! AND not 41, 43!!!


AND yes, he is an idiot. Always was, always will be. AND, yes he should be held accountable for his crimes.

But, since he IS a moron....might might get off scott free....shame....would like to see him in Gitmo....or, Abu Ghariab....poetic justice......

I SINCERELY hate to burst an otherwise good bubble, but this has to be brought up. I hate the idea of giving people false hope:

pagingdrgupta.blogs.cnn.com...

A German hospital announced this week that a 42-year old American living in Berlin who did not want to be identified had come to them three years ago for treatment. It was determined that he had acute leukemia (blood cancer) and was HIV positive too. After a bone marrow transplant, it appears that not only did the man’s cancer go away, so did the virus that causes AIDS. This has been reported worldwide as a “cure” for AIDS. But even the doctors involved in this case say they don’t know if they cured this man of HIV. So what’s all the fuss about? Should HIV patients be treated with a bone marrow transplant? One of America’s top AIDS expert doesn’t think so. “This is interesting but not a practical application. It’s not feasible and has extraordinarily limited practical application” long-time AIDS researcher and Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Dr. Anthony Fauci told CNN. He and other researchers first learned of this case back in February. But this study of one patient has not yet been published or been reviewed by other AIDS experts. It didn’t get much attention back then because of the many limitations it has. Dr. Robert Gallo is one of the scientists who discovered HIV. “While this procedure might help a very small minority of people living with AIDS,” Gallo says, “it is by no means the answer to the world’s HIV/AIDS pandemic.” Doctors first began treating the cancer with chemotherapy. They also gave him anti-retrovirals to contain the virus that causes AIDS. Doctors said at a press conference this week that the patient did go into remission, but eventually the cancer came back. The next step to treat the cancer was a bone marrow transplant, which is common for leukemia patients. His doctors emphasized that without further treatment, without the bone marrow transplant, he would have died of cancer - not HIV or AIDS. But the patient’s physician, Dr. Gero Huetter, wanted to combine the cancer treatment with something he had heard about in medical school 12 years ago. That’s when researchers found out that a certain genetic mutation prevents the virus from getting into a person’s cells. But to be resistant to HIV, one has to have inherited this mutation from both parents. So when it came to looking for a bone marrow donor for his patient, Huetter decided to see if he could find a donor that not only was a marrow match for his patient, but one who also had these two copies of the genetic mutation to see if they would get the bonus of treating the HIV, while treating the more urgent need - cancer. Here’s where the German doctors admit they were very lucky. They told reporters they normally find one to five qualified donors for their patients in need of a transplant. In this case they found 80 donors. So they systematically tested each donor for the mutation and when they came to the 61st potential donor they hit the jackpot. Nearly two years after the bone marrow transplant, the patient is still in remission from his cancer and he doesn’t seem to have any detectable HIV either. This is probably why many newspaper headlines interpreted the success as being a cure. However there are many caveats to this story. 1. Even though their tests do not show a presence of HIV in his system, doesn’t mean it’s not there. This virus is known for hiding well and popping up later. It’s been seen before in patients taking anti-retroviral drugs. It is possible that if more sophisticated tests were used on this patient, they would detect the virus that is still in his body. So it’s still not entirely clear that he is HIV-free. 2. The chances of finding a bone marrow donor with two copies of this genetic mutation for everyone one of the 33 million people worldwide living with HIV or AIDS is not realistic because only one percent of Caucasians and zero percent of African Americans or Asians have this particular genetic mutation. 3. Bone marrow transplants are dangerous for patients. Before they can get the donated stem cells that will replace their own, they have to take strong chemotherapy to destroy their own bone marrow — leaving them without an immune system to fight off any disease — until the transplanted bone marrow can make new blood cells. Plus patients run the risk of rejecting the new cells, which means they have to take immune-suppressing drugs for the rest of their life. 4. Bone marrow transplants are very expensive and not an option for many people living with this disease around the world. Both the doctors in Berlin and AIDS experts we’ve spoken with say this is a “proof of principle.” “It’s an interesting case for researchers,” according to Dr. Rudolf Tauber, from the Charite hospital in Berlin, where the patient was treated. The hope is that this one case could lead to future treatments. Dr. Gallo says, “If patients living with HIV and AIDS have access and can adhere to today’s retroviral therapy, many will live longer, healthier lives, perhaps full length lives.”

Originally posted by stevegmu
He didn't ban stem cell research. He vetoed the federal funding of it.

yeah, he needs to make sure all the funding goes to more important things. Like the war. eh hem, excuse me, i mean CONflict.

It's all fouled up.

Thought i would throw this in


Obama to Reverse Bush's Stem Cell Veto

Obama to sign EO overturning SCR

reply to post by projectvxn


project....bone-marrow just may be the new 'stem-cell' cure of all cures!!!

I'm not a doctor, but I read a lot....and I'm told that bone-marrow therapies MUST match....in that, there has to be a genetic compatability, if I'm getting the terms correct.

Because, as Humans have evolved over the centuries (millenia) there exist compatiblity issues, mostly with blood types.

Again, not a doctor here....just a concerned citizen.

(One stray thought activated a brain cell....and this is SO off-topic, I apologize in advance....different blood types? Incompatible.....but, ONE 'god'??????)

OK, fuel for another discussion....carry on!!

Originally posted by TreX-UKcould we see the iradication of Diesese in our granchildens life time,

I really think so!!!!!!

No. An incredibly risky, expensive and complicated procedure that happened to work on one bloke in a rich country is not going to help your average AIDS victim in Africa or even China one iota.

Originally posted by americandingbat
The big problem with this as a cure for AIDS is that 10-30% of patients die during the procedure, which requires completely wiping out the immune system (including bone marrow) before the transplant. So it's really only been used for patients with cancers that are treated by stem cell transplant anyway.

yea i read about that in my research

I think that the Bush administration actually only banned federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, so researchers were still free to use cord blood and adult stem cells in research. But even that limitation set stem cell research in the states back severely, not so much because of the limitation itself as because of the political ramifications.

ok that i can see, the impression i was given was that he banned stem cell research all together, not cut funding to a particular part.

They don't take stem cells from aborted fetus's.
They are embryonic stem cells the embryo is so small you need a microscope to see it.
They also use umbilical cord and placenta.
They don't cut up aborted fetus's.
The only people who have a problem with the research is religious groups who say its a human life and deserves the same protection as an already breathing human.
But they are crazy lunatics as an embryo is not yet a breathing human being its simply a cell membrane.

Ebola and HIV move through the body the same way and both originally somewhere mutated from other primates (with or without human help, dunno). But ebola is a hemorrhagic disease that doesn't really weaken the immune system like HIV. I mean, it does, but it kills people on it's own and doesn't need other viruses to come into the weakened immune system and make the host sick.

I know someone who had a procedure using adult stem cells but he had to leave the country and go to South America to have it done because the USA doesn't have enough experience with treating it yet, because of all the controversy.

My mom was a midwife during the time where people didn't know about HIV or AIDS and she didn't use gloves... it wasn't a procedure back then. But she was really, really lucky. Some midwife contracted HIV that way. And my mom did have HIV+ patients.

I think that even though WE know that there are other kinds of stem cells than embryonic ones, some people still don't. And look at the following:

Pluripotent stem cells, while having great therapeutic potential, face formidable technical challenges. First, scientists must learn how to control their development into all the different types of cells in the body. Second, the cells now available for research are likely to be rejected by a patient's immune system. Another serious consideration is that the idea of using stem cells from human embryos or human fetal tissue troubles many people on ethical grounds.

stemcells.nih.gov... LURL=%2finfo%2ffaqs%2easp&NRCACHEHINT=NoModifyGuest#excited

I thought that I remembered that. The embryonic ones seem to work better or take better than the others. BUT I also read that scientists are trying to find a way to harvest these cells and use them without having to destroy the embryo or prevent it from developing. But in order to do that, they need more embryos and funding to study the mechanism and find a way to duplicate the results without making people mad.

I think that they could do this by using donated eggs and sperm. I'm not sure, but I personally would donate some extra eggs for the cause of stem cell research. Most wouldn't, but whatever. The pluripotant stem cells can turn into any cell in the body except the ones that develop fetuses. Although they can be harvested from aborted fetuses and miscarriages, they can also be harvested from embryos that are just a few days old. Those are the ones that scientists are trying to study more. If they study how they work, they can be able to reprogram other cells not taken from embryos into stem cells. Some information about that is located at this link:
www.time.com...