China Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 Man appears free of HIV after stem cell transplant By Jacquelyne Froeber 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 Wednesday in the New England Journal of Medicine. "The patient is fine," said Dr. Gero Hutter of Charite Universitatsmedizin Berlin in Germany. "Today, two years after his transplantation, he is still without any signs of HIV disease and without antiretroviral medication." The case was first reported in November, and the new report is the first official publication of the case in a medical journal. Hutter and a team of medical professionals performed the stem cell transplant on the patient, an American living in Germany, to treat the man's leukemia, not the HIV itself. However, the team deliberately chose a compatible donor who has a naturally occurring gene mutation that confers resistance to HIV. The mutation cripples a receptor known as CCR5, which is normally found on the surface of T cells, the type of immune system cells attacked by HIV. The mutation is known as CCR5 delta32 and is found in 1 percent to 3 percent of white populations of European descent. HIV uses the CCR5 as a co-receptor (in addition to CD4 receptors) to latch on to and ultimately destroy immune system cells. Since the virus can't gain a foothold on cells that lack CCR5, people who have the mutation have natural protection. (There are other, less common HIV strains that use different co-receptors.) People who inherit one copy of CCR5 delta32 take longer to get sick or develop AIDS if infected with HIV. People with two copies (one from each parent) may not become infected at all. The stem cell donor had two copies. While promising, the treatment is unlikely to help the vast majority of people infected with HIV, said Dr. Jay Levy, a professor at the University of California San Francisco, who wrote an editorial accompanying the study. A stem cell transplant is too extreme and too dangerous to be used as a routine treatment, he said. "About a third of the people die [during such transplants], so it's just too much of a risk," Levy said. To perform a stem cell transplant, doctors intentionally destroy a patient's immune system, leaving the patient vulnerable to infection, and then reintroduce a donor's stem cells (which are from either bone marrow or blood) in an effort to establish a new, healthy immune system. Click on the link for the full article Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGoodBits Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 I saw on TV that all you have to do to get rid of AIDS is to take liquefied cash and inject it into your blood. That seems easier than this method. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibbsFactor Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 So we have two things that work. Stem Cell and Bone Marrow transplant using marrow that is immune from the syndrome. Promising to say the least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-Prime Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 When is it going to be cost effective to completely irraticate this disease is what I want to know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 I think playing basketball for the Lakers works too, so that makes 3 things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 "About a third of the people die [during such transplants], so it's just too much of a risk," Levy said. To perform a stem cell transplant, doctors intentionally destroy a patient's immune system, leaving the patient vulnerable to infection, and then reintroduce a donor's stem cells (which are from either bone marrow or blood) in an effort to establish a new, healthy immune system. When you are faced with either A. dying from AIDS, or B. a 1/3 chance of dying from treatment, is it really too much of a risk? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGoodBits Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 I think playing basketball for the Lakers works too, so that makes 3 things. No no no no... that was the massive amount of cash involved in playing for the Lakers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duckus Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 When is it going to be cost effective to completely irraticate this disease is what I want to know. A long long long time. People in Africa can't even afford the basic meds to treat it, let alone a surgery. Also, something like 1/3 of all HIV infected citizens in the US don't know they even have it. But this is a great step in the right direction. Science is amazing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateCitySkin Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 good thing bush banned stem cell research. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-Prime Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 A long long long time. People in Africa can't even afford the basic meds to treat it, let alone a surgery. Also, something like 1/3 of all HIV infected citizens in the US don't know they even have it. But this is a great step in the right direction. Science is amazing. It's not science.. It's Jesus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 Adult stem cells > embyonic so far.. thats right, I said it. Placenta stems are doing good .. i got 3 last week at a gov't auction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgundy Burner Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 good thing bush banned stem cell research. Embryonic stem cell research, not Adult Stem Cells (which was probably used in this experiment). And the embryonic ban was government owned cell lines, not private. Just keeping it honest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateCitySkin Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 Embryonic stem cell research, not Adult Stem Cells (which was probably used in this experiment). And the embryonic ban was government owned cell lines, not private.Just keeping it honest. honest like dick cheney? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgundy Burner Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 honest like dick cheney? Can you refute what I posted? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skinz4Life12 Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 they said 1/3 of people are killed by having this procedure though... still proming though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 Embryonic stem cell research, not Adult Stem Cells (which was probably used in this experiment). And the embryonic ban was government owned cell lines, not private.Just keeping it honest. Since they said the stem cell was from a donor, I'm assuming it was an adult stem cell transplant as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skinz4Life12 Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 during obamas term do you think they will lift the ban on embryonic stem cell research? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 during obamas term do you think they will lift the ban on embryonic stem cell research? There really isn't a ban on the research from what I understand, but rather that government funds wouldn't be used to fund the research (someone correct me if I'm wrong). Will government funding be made available under Obama? I'm thinking yeah, it will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 good thing bush banned stem cell research.I would hope you are kidding. Sadly, I know you are not.Embryonic stem cell research, not Adult Stem Cells (which was probably used in this experiment). And the embryonic ban was government owned cell lines, not private.Just keeping it honest. Thank you.honest like dick cheney?Now, your just being trollish.Can you refute what I posted?He can't. Nobody can.Since they said the stem cell was from a donor, I'm assuming it was an adult stem cell transplant as well.That's right, it even said it was (from blood and bone marrow).Of course the news makers just say "stem cells" in order to garner support for embryonic stem cell research because they know most people are ignorant of the difference like ChocolateCitySkin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 during obamas term do you think they will lift the ban on embryonic stem cell research?There is no ban on research. The gov't just says it won't fund it. I mean, think about it, look how much conflict arises over the gov't funding abortion providers. Do you really want the gov't involved in another moral conflict the likes of abortion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skinz4Life12 Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 i think if embryonic stem cells can save lives there shouldn't be a ban on it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 i think if embryonic stem cells can save lives there shouldn't be a ban on it There isn't lol... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateCitySkin Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 zguy keep your jesus to yourself. ethics committees shouldn't be pandering to some loonies that think a guy walked on water. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 i think if embryonic stem cells can save lives there shouldn't be a ban on itBut that's just the point. Nobody knows if they will do anything.Supporters use buzz words like "potential" or "promising", but in reality they have thus far largely proved useless or even dangerous (cancer). Adult stem cell research OTOH should get tons of funding. In foreign countries like Brazil they have used them to regenerate damaged portions of hearts and other organs. On people too, not animals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 zguy keep your jesus to yourself.ethics committees shouldn't be pandering to some loonies that think a guy walked on water. Watch out for the third billy coat Gruff. He's gonna gore you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.