It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Man is HIV-free After Stem Cell Implantation

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 21 2010 @ 07:31 PM
link   
HMMM....kinda makes you think...




A 42-year-old HIV patient with leukemia appears to have no detectable HIV in his blood and no symptoms after a stem cell transplant from a donor carrying a gene mutation that confers natural resistance to the virus that causes AIDS, according to a report published in the New England Journal of Medicine.



Has science made it this far?

Here I am. Constantly harping on the fact that we know so little in the grand scheme of science, and yet I am constantly proven wrong.

But my question to you, ATS'ers....is if this is possible, can we finally lose the moral stigma associated with stem cell research?

I mean really...can we?







Full article




posted on Feb, 21 2010 @ 07:51 PM
link   
Consider the source, it's not exactly the Journal of Medicine is it?


Second lines cure cancer AND aids.



posted on Feb, 21 2010 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zenagain
Consider the source, it's not exactly the Journal of Medicine is it?


Second lines cure cancer AND aids.


Well how about the original source?
I would be careful if I were you to so quickly dismiss new information.

In the age of the internet information spreads quickly enough to reach multiple sources near simultaneously.


Original CNN Source Article



posted on Feb, 21 2010 @ 08:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zenagain
Consider the source, it's not exactly the Journal of Medicine is it?


Second lines cure cancer AND aids.


Lol disinfo.com



posted on Feb, 21 2010 @ 08:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shark_Feeder

Originally posted by Zenagain
Consider the source, it's not exactly the Journal of Medicine is it?


Second lines cure cancer AND aids.


Well how about the original source?
I would be careful if I were you to so quickly dismiss new information.

In the age of the internet information spreads quickly enough to reach multiple sources near simultaneously.


Original CNN Source Article



You thought disnfo.com was a better source than CNN? I take that back, considering how paranoid everyone is on ATS, you may well be right to not use CNN as a source. I dunno. Seems like every month someone posts some link that AIDS or cancer etc etc. are cured and what have you7 and yet.....nothing ever comes of it. It reminds me of Dean Kamen and the Segway. "EVERYONE" thought he had some world changing thing coming out, and it turned out to be the goofiest looking scooter you could possibly imagine.



posted on Feb, 21 2010 @ 08:07 PM
link   
I'm glad it worked for them. I had a autologous-sp? stem cell transplant and it did nothing to cure me. I have a brain and spinal cord disease.

Actually the chemo damaged my once perfect heart


[edit on 21-2-2010 by Bachrk]



posted on Feb, 21 2010 @ 08:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Zenagain
 


I was providing the CNN source article that was referenced in the disinfo piece. Not stating my opinion of either news source.

Seeing as disinfo recieved their information from CNN I thought it prudent to point that out. This is known in the research circles as referencing sources.



posted on Feb, 21 2010 @ 08:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Bachrk
 


I'm sorry to hear that, truly. Just goes to show that this science is real but not yet reliable or predictable. I think this is why no "cures" have yet been released. Genes, DNA and possible genetic markers are endlessly complex subjects.

Hopefully we will something truly usable from this in our lifetimes.

[edit on 21-2-2010 by Shark_Feeder]

[edit on 21-2-2010 by Shark_Feeder]



posted on Feb, 21 2010 @ 08:37 PM
link   
I thought it was a cool article. Do we really have to argue over the source?


Even if it isnt true, lets say CNN is full of it. The question I asked was about the moral stigma attached to stem cell advances.


Carry on.



posted on Feb, 21 2010 @ 09:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zenagain
Consider the source, it's not exactly the Journal of Medicine is it?



No.

This is, though:

content.nejm.org...



posted on Feb, 21 2010 @ 09:30 PM
link   
reply to post by vox2442
 


"Long-Term Control" is not the equivalent of "HIV Free". Stem Cells don't cure HIV. It's important to make the distinction between the transport (stem cell) and the active agent (CCR5/Delta32 mutation). CCR5/Delta32 has been known for quite a few years to make carriers more resistant to HIV infection, with individuals inheriting a double copy of the mutation from both parents being especially resistant. Almost to the point of immunity in some cases.

This is no cure. It's a treatment, and a promising one. But it's not the stem cells themselves which are responsible. A real cure based on the mutation won't come until a gene therapy treatment is developed - and that's quite a few years off.


Originally posted by InertiaZero
HMMM....kinda makes you think...Here I am. Constantly harping on the fact that we know so little in the grand scheme of science, and yet I am constantly proven wrong.

But my question to you, ATS'ers....is if this is possible, can we finally lose the moral stigma associated with stem cell research?


We had better get it worked out, one way or another, because technological advances aren't slowing down anytime soon. Often the claim is made by members here that universities hoard information, that education is withheld from us, and that power is being consolidated. I often point to the internet and people's own lack of initiative to educate themselves as the root of the problem. We have the entirety of human knowledge at our fingertips, and too often it's wasted on menial entertainment - rather than educating ourselves. If knowledge is power, it will be the fault of the individual who decides not to educate themselves if they find themselves powerless. Because this knowledge IS decentralizing and disseminating out into the public at large... us... all of us... and it is up to us whether we decide to engage it.

For example, I came across a nifty little program the other day called "Tinkercell" which is basically an open-source CAD program, except for living biological systems rather than 3D design.

Tinkercell Download page
Tinkercell Wiki

Tinkercell Basic Usage Video.


And if you think synthesis materials and technology are any further out of reach, think again. We are, all of us, creating and interacting with a future which holds incredible promise for mankind if faced with reason and responsibility. Yet many on these forums are utterly convinced we are on the verge of slavery by elite shadowy masters who must be revolted against before it's too late. Worse, some here believe the world is only 6,000 years old and that the end of the world is upon us.

This is some seriously scary S*@#, because even if they aren't smart enough to master this kind of technology (which they are) - what morality do we use to guide us in interaction with those who are paralyzed by fear of those who have the same knowledge they are capable of gaining themselves - yet choose to ignore and retreat into superstition?

[edit on 21-2-2010 by Lasheic]



posted on Feb, 21 2010 @ 09:42 PM
link   
reply to post by InertiaZero
 


Apologies...

I believe there is no moral stigma attached to stem cell research. It is as with all scientific experiments; the source of the raw material is of moral concern, not the promising research.

[edit on 21-2-2010 by Shark_Feeder]



posted on Feb, 21 2010 @ 10:04 PM
link   
Chalk another one up for ADULT Stem Cells!

Another strike against embryonic stem cells.



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join