HuffPost: Stem Cell Transplant Cures HIV In 'Berlin Patient'

[NavyDave]

Note to self: sell stock in Trojan condoms NOW!

You can still make money since DC public schools caved and started supplying Magnum condoms for free to the cheap,randy underaged but higher learning challenged masses.

I wonder how many girls talk about false advertisement with their girlfriends afterwards. :doh:

[Redskins Diehard]

Come on twa, get a grip! This could be a time for a very REAL celebration that in fact we might have an actual workable cure for AIDS!!!!

Enough of this Bush v. Obama crap already, stop trying to politicize this!

You'd have a little credibility in your "stop politicizing this" if you had a problem with the poster that introduced politics into the discussion in the first place. But he is on "your team" isn't he?

---------- Post added December-15th-2010 at 08:03 AM ----------

If these were embryonic stem cells this will set off a Christian **** storm. Using murdered babies to cure a disease spread via sin!

But they weren't. So we only have to pretend to be outraged at Bush for limiting something that had nothing to do with this. So it isn't a Christian **** storm...it is a "hate Bush" **** storm.

[NavyDave]

damn it damn it damn it

Alien A It was a perfect plan for purging the earth of the human race.

Alien B But not all humans are irresponsible, into deviant sex, poor, stupid, think its a myth, or a victim of a bad blood or tainted organs.

Alien A Well how about we create an Ebola like virus that effects people who watch soccer?

Alien B It could cause devastation around the world because they do not have any real sports that they excel in to watch or play regularly but would not cause any noticeable damage in the USA

[AsburySkinsFan]

You'd have a little credibility in your "stop politicizing this" if you had a problem with the poster that introduced politics into the discussion in the first place. But he is on "your team" isn't he?

On my team? :doh:

For starters I opened to the last page of the thread and was reading backwards.

But, please by all means politicize this and make it about teams...and all other sorts of infantile hackery.....please why not....I mean if we can't politicize a potential cure for AIDS and make it an "us against them" monkey crap fight at the zoo then we must be doing something wrong right?

P.S. Anyone politicizing this please just stop it...it's stupid...that goes for Leftists, Liberals, Independents, Moderates, Green Partiers, Tea Partiers, Conservatives, Republicans and those non-affiliated with any political ideology.....

There is that better....good grief.....:doh:

[Burgold]

When I brought up the funding issues, it wasn't to politicize this, but merely grouse how I wanted us to be the top dog in research and medicine and how we've shot ourselves in the foot. I guess it's inevitable that that kind of observation becomes a us versus them political squabble, but it wasn't my intent.

I stick by my first quote though. This is fantastic news, but I kinda wish it had been us leading the way.

[Special K]

All of this is true, but evangelical missions are exacerbating the situation in many countries, IMO.

I actually haven't noticed this being a major problem in the countries I've worked, particularly in Africa. Of course I've only worked in Madagascar and sub-Saharan Africa and not everywhere in Africa and of course I don't know the details of every health project in the country. So you have a legitimate concern in some respect. I simply do not think it is as large of an issue as the media here in America make it out to be. I can tell you that on the ground in the places I've worked, strictly evangelical missions are typically not funded well and their reach is confined to relatively small pockets of the country. The larger health programs, particuarly ones funded by USAID and other government agencies, even when carried out by Christian organizations, do not solely "preach" abstinence.

[techboy]

That was a really weak effort at deflection, even for you.

I don't see how this is a deflection. Vishal brought up cloning first.

There's a very real "ends justifies the means" train of thought in this thread which I find disturbing. Science needs ethical checks on it. Just because we can do something doesn't mean we should.

Insert real world example of horribly unethical behavior by medical researchers that still had tangible benefits here.

It's nice that this is a case where researchers were able to use adult skin cells, avoiding the ethical quandry altogether.

[twa]

When I brought up the funding issues, it wasn't to politicize this, but merely grouse how I wanted us to be the top dog in research and medicine and how we've shot ourselves in the foot. I guess it's inevitable that that kind of observation becomes a us versus them political squabble, but it wasn't my intent.

I stick by my first quote though. This is fantastic news, but I kinda wish it had been us leading the way.

Perhaps you are looking at the wrong culprit?

and the facts are W increased funding for both embryonic and adult stem cell research

[nonniey]

Plus, if this study is true, then that's yet another reason to advocate stem cell research, instead of banning it.

It wasn't embryonic stem cells (Which are the only type that anyone has proposed be banned) that were used in the procedure.

[thebluefood]

NavyDave...YOU'RE a Robot Chicken fan?!

Listen, guys, I'd consider myself fairly heavy on the pro choice side; but you have to admit that this is pretty cool. I mean, we might, JUST might, have the cure to HIV/AIDS here. Now, hopefully, we can find a way to harness that without using fetuses.

[Burgold]

Perhaps you are looking at the wrong culprit? And the facts are W increased funding for both embryonic and adult stem cell research

I don't want to sidetrack the discussion again (besides, I have to leave in about five minutes), but numbers lie. If you spoke with the researchers, directors, funders, and saw the actual monies that had been released and why and which proposals were accepted, declined and who was cut off, who lived in fear, and who prospered you would get it. Sometimes, looking at one chart or one table tells a very incomplete story. People can make statistics say practically anything they need them too. In many real ways, the NIH was drastically cut... they forced out their tenured best and replaced them with contractors. The very standards of research were changed. Research was approved because it was politically popular. You'd never guess how many Zinc studies suddenly were going on in every Institute of the NIH at one point.

The fact is, you don't know the facts. You merely have a few and as the cliche goes... a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. If you listen to all the posters with a medical or scientific background even in this thread... none dispute what I've said. Only you. Dig deeper.

[PeterMP]

I don't want to sidetrack the discussion again (besides, I have to leave in about five minutes), but numbers lie. If you spoke with the researchers, directors, funders, and saw the actual monies that had been released and why and which proposals were accepted, declined and who was cut off, who lived in fear, and who prospered you would get it. Sometimes, looking at one chart or one table tells a very incomplete story. People can make statistics say practically anything they need them too. In many real ways, the NIH was drastically cut... they forced out their tenured best and replaced them with contractors. The very standards of research were changed. Research was approved because it was politically popular. You'd never guess how many Zinc studies suddenly were going on in every Institute of the NIH at one point.

The fact is, you don't know the facts. You merely have a few and as the cliche goes... a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. If you listen to all the posters with a medical or scientific background even in this thread... none dispute what I've said. Only you. Dig deeper.

Well, then let me say two things:

1. The vast majority of research conducted via NIH funding isn't conducted at the NIH, but through external funding (I know more than one person that will tell you that the NIH as a research institution should be closed down and all the funding should be shunted to external competitive awards).

2. I know less about the mechanism of internal funding at the NIH, but it would be hard to hide political biases in external funding, and I've never heard anybody claim there were real politicial biases.

[GibbsFactor]

It is a very expensive cure as it will only work right now if you have luekema and then you have to have the right donor as well

As I understand it, heard about this a year or two ago, the cure is essentially a bone marrow transplant from a donor that is immune to HIV/AIDS. The problem is that less than 5% of the population is immune to it so making large scale solutions isn't feasible at the moment.

However, with stem cell research, I have no problem in the "creation" of such marrow if technology allows it.

[Elessar78]

http://www.amazon.com/Unprotected-Miriam-Grossman/dp/1595230459/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1292432484&sr=1-1

Sorry to pimp out a book on here, but this one has some interesting insight into HIV/AIDS mythology. The author claims that it's backed by published articles in respected medical journals. I have never heard her assertions any where else so it's unverified, but that doesn't mean it's untrue. There are citations in her book, but I don't have it in front of me. Will post later when I get home.

Anyway, she says that because of human physiology and the structure of the AIDS virus that contraction of the virus through heterosexual intercourse is statistically impossible. I wish I could ask an MD if this is true.

[HighOnHendrix]

Lol, I missed Ken claiming AIDS is a hoax. Geez...

Anyway, this is amazing news. Thank God we finally opened up stem cell research here.

Yes, it offers so much hope for so many ills it's unthinkable not to pursue stem cell research. I have qualms about the possible ethical ramifications involved in embryonic stem cell research, but I think that as long as some common sense is utilized it's not something most people would have a problem with.

[Predicto]

http://www.amazon.com/Unprotected-Miriam-Grossman/dp/1595230459/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1292432484&sr=1-1

Sorry to pimp out a book on here, but this one has some interesting insight into HIV/AIDS mythology. The author claims that it's backed by published articles in respected medical journals. I have never heard her assertions any where else so it's unverified, but that doesn't mean it's untrue. There are citations in her book, but I don't have it in front of me. Will post later when I get home.

Anyway, she says that because of human physiology and the structure of the AIDS virus that contraction of the virus through heterosexual intercourse is statistically impossible. I wish I could ask an MD if this is true.

I took a look at the reviews on Amazon. I noted that all of them were from right wing media sources like Laura Schlesinger.

Then I read this in the comments.

" In June 2007 the author, Miriam Grossman MD, became a Senior Fellow at the Clare Boothe Luce Policy Institute, a conservative non-profit that counts Ann Coulter, Phyllis Schlafly and Michelle Malkin as members. Readers that share CBLPI's ideological outlook will love this book. Readers that don't share CBLPI's outlook (myself included) will find much of this book disagreeable. Additionally, like most ideologically-motivated works (liberal or conservative), the author relies heavily on observation and anecdotal evidence instead of rigorous scientific studies."

[PeterMP]

http://www.amazon.com/Unprotected-Miriam-Grossman/dp/1595230459/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1292432484&sr=1-1

Sorry to pimp out a book on here, but this one has some interesting insight into HIV/AIDS mythology. The author claims that it's backed by published articles in respected medical journals. I have never heard her assertions any where else so it's unverified, but that doesn't mean it's untrue. There are citations in her book, but I don't have it in front of me. Will post later when I get home.

Anyway, she says that because of human physiology and the structure of the AIDS virus that contraction of the virus through heterosexual intercourse is statistically impossible. I wish I could ask an MD if this is true.

No that isn't true. The risk are pretty low per a sexual encounter so sometimes people will use that number and some math and argue it is impossible, but when you take into account everybody that has sex and the total number of times people have sex, it turns into a reasonable number of people.

http://general-medicine.jwatch.org/cgi/content/full/1988/315/1

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/qa/prevention.htm

The risk are even lower for non-IV drug using heterosexual men.

Now, if you are non-IV drug using female homosexual, you are really really safe. There are no reported cases of female-female transmission of HIV.

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/women/resources/factsheets/wsw.htm

[Elessar78]

I took a look at the reviews on Amazon. I noted that all of them were from right wing media sources like Laura Schlesinger.

Then I read this in the comments.

" In June 2007 the author, Miriam Grossman MD, became a Senior Fellow at the Clare Boothe Luce Policy Institute, a conservative non-profit that counts Ann Coulter, Phyllis Schlafly and Michelle Malkin as members. Readers that share CBLPI's ideological outlook will love this book. Readers that don't share CBLPI's outlook (myself included) will find much of this book disagreeable. Additionally, like most ideologically-motivated works (liberal or conservative), the author relies heavily on observation and anecdotal evidence instead of rigorous scientific studies."

I don't think that review is accurate at all concerning anecdotal vs science. I've read the book and if you're familiar with my posts I'm ANYTHING BUT RIGHT WING. There is a lot of stuff that is observation based (anecdotal, implies that it's innacurate and without context) in the book but the stuff I'm citing about AIDS is not anecdotal. You can't really make an anecdote about human physiology and the thickness of certain membranes and how many microns across the AIDS virus.

PeterMP, are you an MD? I'm just curious because I would like to hear the thoughts of another MD on this.

Like you started to get at, some populations are more vulnerable than others.

[Predicto]

I don't think that review is accurate at all concerning anecdotal vs science. I've read the book and if you're familiar with my posts I'm ANYTHING BUT RIGHT WING. There is a lot of stuff that is observation based (anecdotal, implies that it's innacurate and without context) in the book but the stuff I'm citing about AIDS is not anecdotal. You can't really make an anecdote about human physiology and the thickness of certain membranes and how many microns across the AIDS virus.

No, but you can assert something as proven fact when it really isn't. Since I personally know a woman who contracted HIV through hetrosexual intercourse, I suspect that this "fact" isn't really factual.

[Elessar78]

I'd like to have this discussion, but only if you won't be offended about what may be implied about your friend.

[Burgold]

Well, then let me say two things:

1. The vast majority of research conducted via NIH funding isn't conducted at the NIH, but through external funding (I know more than one person that will tell you that the NIH as a research institution should be closed down and all the funding should be shunted to external competitive awards).

2. I know less about the mechanism of internal funding at the NIH, but it would be hard to hide political biases in external funding, and I've never heard anybody claim there were real politicial biases.

Now, there's an honest debate. The benefit of groups like the NIH historically is that it is not beholden to a finding. If R J Reynolds is funding your science there is explicit or indirect pressure to have research that points to a certain finding. It's the same thing if your science is being done at or funded by a large Pharma. They want results and they want marketable products. So, having a government institution which is not beholden to anything other than doing good science or the public's benefit can be a real advantage.

That said, these days, the culture at NIH and others like her have changed. They've become very political and largely that is because of the pot. While you say NIH funding has not changed or has even increased what you don't think about is that they've spent tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars on new infrastructure during that time. New roads. Three new parking garages. At least four security centers where each car and passenger can be inspected. So, do we count that as research money? The money dedicated to actual science has been slashed.

[Predicto]

I'd like to have this discussion, but only if you won't be offended about what may be implied about your friend.

Go ahead, if you really think it's a point worth making.

You yourself admit that you have no idea if this book is blowing smoke, and you wish you could ask an MD. Yet at the same time, you are assuming that the book is correct and therefore my friend is a slut. :whoknows:

Do a little websearching and thinking. The sources for this "HIV is never transmitted through heterosexual sex fact" are always the same: right wing or Evangelical sources with an ax to grind about homosexuals and "deviants."

I have not read your book, but I suspect that it relies heavily on a scientific paper by Nancy Padian. Here is an article, written by Padian herself, about the misuse of her research by those with an agenda.

http://www.aidstruth.org/denialism/misuse/padian

[SnyderShrugged]

As one who is against abortion in most cases, I actually am in favor of stem cell research, even embrionic if its seen as valuable. What I dont want however, are cases where a baby is aborted for the ourpose of gaining the stem cells.

[Predicto]

As one who is against abortion in most cases, I actually am in favor of stem cell research, even embrionic if its seen as valuable. What I dont want however, are cases where a baby is aborted for the ourpose of gaining the stem cells.

Of course, that never, ever happens. Why would it?

[NavyDave]

NavyDave...YOU'RE a Robot Chicken fan?!

Listen, guys, I'd consider myself fairly heavy on the pro choice side; but you have to admit that this is pretty cool. I mean, we might, JUST might, have the cure to HIV/AIDS here. Now, hopefully, we can find a way to harness that without using fetuses.

Yep have the uncut versions thanks to my nephew.

And I hope there is finally a cure so Science can focus on more troubling diseases that can't be avoided by changing personal behaviour.