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

[PeterMP]

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.

1. You get the same benefit from external institutions conducting research funded by the government that is awarded via competitive grants.

2. I didn't say anything about the level of funding at the NIH. Certainly, in terms of external funding, the amount of funding has gone up (maybe not when corrected for inflation, especially when specifically corrected for "inflation" of doing biomedical research). http://report.nih.gov/budget_and_spending/index.aspx

But I didn't even say that.

I said I hadn't seen or heard of any complaints about politics (in terms of funding real research grants based on party in control in DC) determining external grant funding.

[Elessar78]

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

No. I'm not going to accuse your friend of being a slut. All I was going to say was that not all the membranes of the human body are created equally. The physiology of the female reproductive organ and the rectum are not the same. One is more susceptible to infection than the other. For lack of a medical term, one is thicker and the other thinner. One is less susceptible to tearing and the other is not so there is more risk of blood contact. So it's definitely not saying she's a slut, but this other thing does happen in hetero situations.

So a male partner gave it to her. Female to male to transmission is highly unlikely too, from what I gather. So how'd he get it? Is IV drug use out of the question for the guy? Bad blood transfusion?

I'm not trying to make enemies here. And I'm definitely not trying to peddle an ideology that isn't mine. When I came across this info two years ago it made me really curious so I looked it up on the internet. I haven't found anything to confirm or refute it. No one is out there saying this woman's science is wrong or right.

[Burgold]

1. You get the same benefit from external institutions conducting research funded by the government that is awarded via competitive grants.

Truish... depending on if the contractors are beholden to someone else and a part of a group that pressures them to achieve x or y. I sometimes wonder though if a contractor feels a greater pressure to prove their hypothesis correct on a grant they've received. A lot of good sciecnce can be based on finding out you were wrong.

2. I didn't say anything about the level of funding at the NIH. Certainly, in terms of external funding, the amount of funding has gone up (maybe not when corrected for inflation, especially when specifically corrected for "inflation" of doing biomedical research). http://report.nih.gov/budget_and_spending/index.aspx

But I didn't even say that.

Oh, that was part of a convers. twa and I were having. Did I misquote? (Edit: I did. For some reason, I thought you were twa and that was part of the discussion we were having yesterday. Sorry about that.

[Predicto]

I'm not trying to make enemies here. And I'm definitely not trying to peddle an ideology that isn't mine. When I came across this info two years ago it made me really curious so I looked it up on the internet. I haven't found anything to confirm or refute it. No one is out there saying this woman's science is wrong or right.

The article I just linked to you in post 72 is saying that this woman's science is wrong.

Heterosexual transmission of HIV – Nancy Padian, PhD

HIV is unquestionably transmitted through heterosexual intercourse. Indeed, heterosexual intercourse is now responsible for 70-80% of all HIV transmissions worldwide (2). The current likelihood of male to female infection after a single exposure to HIV is 0.01-0.32% (2, 3), and the current likelihood of female to male infection after a single exposure is 0.01-0.1% (2). These estimates are mostly derived from studies in the developed world. However, a man or a woman can become HIV-positive after just one sexual contact. In developing countries, particularly those in sub-Saharan Africa, several factors (co-infection with other sexually transmitted diseases, circumcision practices, poor acceptance of condoms, patterns of sexual partner selection, locally circulating viral subtypes, high viral loads among those who are infected, etc.) can increase the likelihood of heterosexual transmission to 20% or even higher (4). Evidence that specifically documents the heterosexual transmission of HIV comes from studies of HIV-discordant couples (i.e., couples in a stable, monogamous relationship where one partner is infected and the other is not); over time, HIV transmission occurs (5). Other studies have traced the transmission of HIV through networks of sexual partners (6-9). Additional evidence comes from intervention studies that, for example, promote condom use or encourage reductions in the numbers of sexual partners: the documented success of these interventions is because they prevent the sexual transmission of HIV (1,10,11).

In short, the evidence for the sexual transmission of HIV is well documented, conclusive, and based on the standard, uncontroversial methods and practices of medical science. Individuals who cite the 1997 Padian et al. publication (1) or data from other studies by our research group in an attempt to substantiate the myth that HIV is not transmitted sexually are ill informed, at best. Their misuse of these results is misleading, irresponsible, and potentially injurious to the public.

[PeterMP]

stuff about contractors

Ahh, I see. You are considering people working at outside institutions that are doing research on NIH based grants as contractors.

That's a little confusing because the NIH differentiates between grants and contracts in terms of funding mechanisms.

Certainly that is an issue, but I expect it is less of an issue as having to "drop" and idea you have become "married" too psychologically, which happens under any circumstances, and external funding allows you to better avoid institutional biases and create situations where people actually competing so "proving" your hypothesis doesn't do much good if somebody else has a competing hypothesis (especially because the way you "prove" a hypothesis is by disproving realistic alternatives). I'll also point out that people at the NIH were doing a lot of external consulting and howled and threw fits when they were told to stop.

http://sci.rutgers.edu/forum/showthread.php?t=12216

I completely support more stringent and wide spread use of conflict of interests statements and reports.

[Skinz4Life12]

without a doubt HIV is spread via hetero sex.

however, from what i have gathered it is much more rare for a circumcised heterosexual man to contract HIV through traditional (non anal) sex than it is for homosexual men or heterosexual men who have anal sex. I am basing this on one time encounters only

[Elessar78]

The article I just linked to you in post 72 is saying that this woman's science is wrong.

In the text you quoted... male to female likelihood is at .01–.32% and female to male is .01–.1%. That doesn't disagree with what I wrote. Her science says that it's statistically impossible for infection to occur in a hetero encounter. Now does this stat discount what I said that even a MAN and WOMAN can have sex other than vaginal sex? Infection is more likely one way than the other.

Again the passage mentions "viral loads"... in the case of the AIDS virus volume matters. One lone virus is not enough. Repeated exposure increasing the volume of the virus in your system. Yes. One encounter, if you're extremely unlucky, is enough but it is also very very unlikely to do the trick. It even says that the the percentages mentioned are single exposure situations.

[Special K]

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.

Not only is this false, this is extremely dangerous misinformation.

[Elessar78]

Thank you keeastman, now I know you have a medical background what is wrong with the info? I'm not trying to be snide. I'd really like to know.

[SnyderShrugged]

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

It's not the present I'm concerned with, but the future potential for something like that to happen in the name of science.

Like I said, I'm actually OK with embrionic stem cell research, even though I am adamantly against abortion (and not for religious reasons btw)

[Riggo-toni]

Stem cells can cure AIDS…..gee. if the religious right wasn't against stem cell research before, they definitely will be now!

J/k

[Elessar78]

So I transcribed the section where she goes into the biology of the transmission of AIDS. In the rare instance where it was too long to retype I paraphrased in italics or give an abridged version. This is my best effort to not change the meaning by omission.

Female to male transmission:

...Study of monogamous hetero couples, in which a woman is infected and man is not. Condom use inconsistent… in one study over ten years only two of 82 men were infected. Of almost 21,000 men in NYC in 1989 only 8 were unequivocally infected from a woman.

“Heterosexual” in the literature is defined as including HIV/AIDS cases traced to sexual contact with bisexual men and drug users.

Histology (study of cells) of the vagina vs histology of the rectum… for the infection to occur HIV must either enter the bloodstream or gain access to deeper tissues. This makes it a relatively difficult bug to pass along. The virus must reach “target cells” (T-cells) only here can the virus make a home and reproduce. To reach T-cells, HIV must either bypass or pass through a barrier… addict sharing a needle… blood transfusions… through breast feeding, virus passes through milk and through the lining of the digestive system into the bloodstream of the baby.

The vagina has built-in structures that are protective from the get-go. The pH is low, which inactives HIV. It’s mucus has anit-HIV proteins. It’s lining is twenty to forty-five cells thick, increasing the distance to be traversed by the virus. Under the lining is a lyaoer in which T-cells are found; this area is rich with elastic fibers. This architecture allows for significant stretching of the vagina without tears or abrasions. Research indicated that HIV is unable to reach T-cells in the human vagina under normal circumstances.

The rectum has a different struture. As part of the Gastrointestinal system, it has a lining whose primary function is absorption, bringing in molecules of food and water. The pH is higher… the rectal lining is only one cell thick. Below that delicate lining are blood vessels and T-cells. Elastic fibers are absent.

Early in the epidemic, it was assumed that the fragility of the rectal barrier accounted for the more common male-to-male transmission. But later in the 1980s came a discovery: infection could occur without disruption of the barrier. Specialized cells on the rectal surface were able to latch on to the virus, take it in, and deliver it to T-cells.

These are called M cells and they basically end up speeding the virus to a lymphocyte. This could happen in as little as ten minutes.

For this and other reasons, some researchers argue convincingly that vaginal transmission is very rare. They are supported by studies of prostitutes, averaging two to three hundred contacts a year, usually unprotected, in which AIDS was only found in women who were also IV drug abusers.

When a man gets HIV from a woman and passes it on to another woman, the second woman is called a tertiary case. Without a tertiary transmission, there can be no epidemic. Because heterosexual tertiary transmission is so rare, the few cases that exist are famous.

Male to female transmission odds: 1 in 500 million.

----

Relevant citations (partial, I'm not going to do a bibliography):

1. Family Planning Perspectives 27

2. The Myth of Heterosexual Aids (a text book)

3. www.merckmanual.com

4. Basic Histology: Text and Atlas

5. Parameters of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Infection of Human Cervical Tissue and Inhibition of Vaginal Virucides

6. Journal of the AMA

7. Histology for Pathologists

8. Journal of Virology

9. Seminars in Immunology

10. Histopathology 10

11. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists

just a few lest she be written off as a crack-pot MD/idealogue. I don't have an agenda to paint HIV/AIDS as this or that, if this is the truth then I want to put it out there. If it's false then I'd gladly take it all down. To me, and what do I know other than a few college classes in biology and reading stuff here and there, the biological support she provides seems credible.

[Predicto]

Ellesar, she is cherry picking research, mostly from very early in the AIDS epidemic, and then extrapolating from it to the present time. Look at her links. Look how she has links to support some facts, but says "some researchers claim..." for other facts (the ones that matter to this discussion). Then she suddenly pops up with a statistic: Male to female transmission odds: 1 in 500 million. That statistic is utterly full of crap.

Of course it is easier to get HIV from anal sex, but in fact, the MAJORITY of HIV cases in Africa and South America these days are from heterosexual intercourse.

This author has an agenda. She is not presenting the case honestly. It is like reading a creation scientist attack evolution. If you had no other information available to you, you would find it very persuasive, but if you examine it objectively and look for assumptions and leaps of proof, it all falls apart.

Did you read the article I posted to you? It links to actual scientific, peer reviewed, scientific studies demonstrating the transmission of HIV in ordinary heterosexual sex.

[Elessar78]

I did and I responded to the stuff that you quoted. I said that they do not contradict each other. Yours is saying that hetero sex with an infected person, will EVENTUALLY lead to infection. Mine is saying that a one-off incident is unlikely and backed by the statistics YOU posted. .32 and .1% are ridiculously low numbers.

And again, using your source, they say that the infection rate in Africa is because of a lot of coexisting factors ("co-infection with other sexually transmitted diseases, circumcision practices, poor acceptance of condoms, patterns of sexual partner selection, locally circulating viral subtypes, high viral loads among those who are infected, etc."). What I posted above talks about what happens in a healthy vagina. STDs, sores, the practice of female circumsition all contribute to a compromised system. It's more susceptible. So they maybe having vaginal sex but it's not under pristine conditions. Also it's presumptious to say that there's no anal or homosexual acts going on. No intravenous drug use.

Both sides are claiming to tell the truth about AIDS, so who is? How are you so sure that your side doesn't have an agenda?

Claim: heterosexual intercourse is now responsible for 70-80% of all HIV transmissions worldwide.

I discuss this above that the clinical definition doesn't account for a history of bisexual or IV drug use behavior.

Claim: Other studies have traced the transmission of HIV through networks of sexual partners

Stunningly vague on the nature of these sexual partners and the rates of infection.

Claim: "Infectivity for HIV through heterosexual transmission is low". Anyone who takes the trouble to read and understand the paper should appreciate that it reports on a study of behavioural interventions such as those mentioned above: Specifically, discordant couples (i.e., couples in a stable, monogamous relationship where one partner is infected and the other is not) were strongly counseled to use condoms and practice safe sex (1,12). That we witnessed no HIV transmissions after the interventiondocuments the success of the interventions in preventing the sexual transmission of HIV.

"The intervention" meaning they told them to use condoms and reduce sexual partners? Duh. So condom use reduces the transmission of AIDS.

What links are you talking about? I didn't post any links in the text? You get hung up on the words "some researchers..." but don't respond to the scientific stuff. It's astute and lawyer-ly of you to pick out the weaknesses in my transcription and avoid the biological arguments. Additionally, this isn't written as a text book so it has to be informal to a degree. You accuse her of cherry picking early research but the citations from your source are from comparable time periods and if not, at least most are within ten years. It's not like she citing Dr. Salk's research into immunology here. Her citations range from 1988 to 2005, the latest in yours is from 2002.

[Special K]

Thank you keeastman, now I know you have a medical background what is wrong with the info? I'm not trying to be snide. I'd really like to know.

Well, I'm certainly not an MD, but I have taken several public health courses on HIV/AIDS epidemiology, STD transmission, etc. Plus, I stayed at a Holiday Inn last night

I've read what you've posted about the physiological differences between the rectal and vaginal canals. While it is true that there are significant physiological differences, these differences do not preclude HIV from being transmitted through penile/vaginal intercourse. For example, one of the reasons given in the transcript you posted was the vaginal pH. Well, the vaginal pH does not always remain constant, particularly if a woman has a vaginal infection, or another type of STD. This makes conditions much more condusive to HIV transmission. Also, there are many women I worked with when I worked in OB/Gyn who do bleed a little bit during normal intercourse. Again, despite the vaginal canal's natural barriers to infection, whenever bodily fluids are involved, there is an opportunity for infection. Those are just a few examples of how HIV is transmitted through heterosexual intercourse...there are many more.

I can give you some links if you're interested.

[HighOnHendrix]

Ellesar, she is cherry picking research, mostly from very early in the AIDS epidemic, and then extrapolating from it to the present time. Look at her links. Look how she has links to support some facts, but says "some researchers claim..." for other facts (the ones that matter to this discussion). Then she suddenly pops up with a statistic: Male to female transmission odds: 1 in 500 million. That statistic is utterly full of crap.

Of course it is easier to get HIV from anal sex, but in fact, the MAJORITY of HIV cases in Africa and South America these days are from heterosexual intercourse.

This author has an agenda. She is not presenting the case honestly. It is like reading a creation scientist attack evolution. If you had no other information available to you, you would find it very persuasive, but if you examine it objectively and look for assumptions and leaps of proof, it all falls apart.

Did you read the article I posted to you? It links to actual scientific, peer reviewed, scientific studies demonstrating the transmission of HIV in ordinary heterosexual sex.

I have to agree with you, P. 1 in 500 million? I don't buy it.

[Elessar78]

Well, I'm certainly not an MD, but I have taken several public health courses on HIV/AIDS epidemiology, STD transmission, etc. Plus, I stayed at a Holiday Inn last night

I've read what you've posted about the physiological differences between the rectal and vaginal canals. While it is true that there are significant physiological differences, these differences do not preclude HIV from being transmitted through penile/vaginal intercourse. For example, one of the reasons given in the transcript you posted was the vaginal pH. Well, the vaginal pH does not always remain constant, particularly if a woman has a vaginal infection, or another type of STD. This makes conditions much more condusive to HIV transmission. Also, there are many women I worked with when I worked in OB/Gyn who do bleed a little bit during normal intercourse. Again, despite the vaginal canal's natural barriers to infection, whenever bodily fluids are involved, there is an opportunity for infection. Those are just a few examples of how HIV is transmitted through heterosexual intercourse...there are many more.

I can give you some links if you're interested.

Thanks. That's okay I'll pass. I've presented this author's argument. It's not my battle to fight.