Man Appears Free of HIV After Stem Cell Transplant

Submitted by: opiebreath 8 years ago in Science
http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/02/11/health.hiv.stemcell/index.html?eref=rss_latest

The donor carried a gene mutation that is naturally resistant to the AIDS virus.
There are 56 comments:
Female 323
are they adult stem cells or embryonic stem cells?
0
Reply
Male 263
wow what next cancer?
0
Reply
Female 761
Every black person in America who had slaves here have European ancestry...just to answer your question. Don`t know if you was being sarcastic or not.
0
Reply
Female 140
why isnt everybody freaking out????????? OMG
0
Reply
Male 251
Baalthazaq- true, I oversimplified a bit. I had thought of that and forgot to mention it while typing. So they`re OK with multiples if people can not afford singlular embryo implants, so long as none are aborted and the people who opted for the more affordable process now deal with the chances of getting the expenses of additional children. Seems like a pretty big catch 22 there, since even with the 8-12 implant method, it`s only about a 30% success rate.
0
Reply
Male 524
Amazing what they can do with stem cells.
0
Reply
Male 10,440
Once again, Baalthazaq disagrees with everyone. I doubt even he knows what side he`s on.
0
Reply
Male 4,547
Sloth: Not quite.
You can have more. If some fail, they fail.
If however all take, they are against aborting some of the takers.
0
Reply
Male 4,547
OH YEAH?! TAKE THIS AQAUSIXIO!

I repeat:
They used adult stem cells.
[The conservatives] didn`t try to stop it.
[The Conservatives] were the ones pushing for adult stem cell research.

0
Reply
Female 1,397
TAKE THAT CONSERVATIVES!
0
Reply
Male 234
je_scream That is because if you read the full article it says "The mutation is known as CCR5 delta32 and is found in 1 percent to 3 percent of white populations of European descent."

And lets face it, how many black people are of European descent?

0
Reply
Female 189
This is a good thing right? why hasn`t been on the news like crazy?
0
Reply
Female 609
holy crudddddddd!!!
this is huge!
0
Reply
Female 1,653
Yay!
Although apparently AIDS in humans began after some drattards slept with apes...
And it`s the apes I feel sory for in all this.
0
Reply
Female 761
Eww, is that a big picture of Balut? how gauche!
0
Reply
Female 761
And of course it supposedly only works for `Caucasians` I swear I hate when they lie. Damn the American Medical Association. If I seem a little hostile it`s because I watched `Sicko` last night, kinda got to me.
0
Reply
Male 251
Too late, a mod already did. That`s what made me think about the question.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
These were apparently Adult stem cells, So I doubt any one pro-life will get up in arms over this treatment.
0
Reply
Male 251
So, basically it boils down to a pro-life position on in vitro being: `If you can afford to have the process done as many times as it takes to establish a successful pregnancy using a single gamete at a time, go for it. If you can`t afford it, you`re S.O.L.`? Or are they against the in vitro process completely?
0
Reply
Male 4,547
Generally speaking prolifers are against fertility treatments that have some form of in-built abortion expectation, specifically "shotgunning".

I wouldn`t know quite how much the pro-life movement focuses on this, I`m not particularly pro life, but I`ve heard of several arguments from prolifers against the practice.

Kaizer:
1) Why make that distinction?
2) A newborn does not have the potential in it`s current physical state to match the intellect of a pig.

Let me simplify it. I want to know why a pig is inferior to a newborn. I.e. Why it should be given more/less rights.

As far as I can see that will always come down to potential. Not the same potential that any given egg may become fertilized (0.4%) or sperm (0.0000000001%), but a realistic potential (70%) of becoming a full grown adult. These are not the same thing.

0
Reply
Male 251
Out of curiosity (I`ve never heard an anti-stemcell research/pro-lifer`s point of view on this): How do you all feel about fertility clinics? Typically in the in vitro process, 8-12 eggs are fertilized and implanted to increse the chances of success, and when a pregnancy is successfully established, any extra fertilized gametes (including those of multiple pregnancies) are often intentionally aborted. Maybe I`ve been ignorant in not hearing any positions on it, but I try pretty damned hard not to be ignorant, so I find it odd that I never hear it come up in political/theological discussions and debates. One of the reasons I ask is because the statistics on how much fetal tissue is simply thrown away each and every year are staggering.
0
Reply
Male 777
Physical potential, yes. I do think that it should looked at through what potential its current physical state gives it. Mental development is quite different, as I see it, from physical development. The former`s potential exists solely in it`s current state, whilst the latter`s is based on an idea of what potential it`s physical state might eventually have. That`s the line of separation for me; what physical potential it currently has, versus what physical potential it has the potential to have.
0
Reply
Male 4,547
It`s pretty much me... I can`t write short messages.

0
Reply
Male 1,153
whats with all the essays?
0
Reply
Male 4,547
Perhaps true of a two year old, but not true of a newborn. A newborn`s brain is still developing substantially when it is born.

A human, in theory, should be born after 1 year, not 9 months, however as humans decided standing up was a good idea, we now give birth earlier in order for our women to survive the birthing process.

However, consider this summary of your latest explanation: Are you suggesting that it`s unfair to judge something on its current intelligence, when what we should be looking at is its potential?

0
Reply
Male 777
Whoops. Sorry about misspelling your name, Baal. The underline made me read the q as a g.
As to the topic at-hand, please don`t pick and choose things that already admitted to and try to use them to undermine the ideas I`m trying to get across. I admitted the relativity of terms and classifications. I`m big on relativism. If I say something that sounds like an absolute, you can always assume that, even if it`s not written, there`s a little "the way I see it is" tacked on.
As relating to pigs, perhaps the real question to be asked is should we consider pigs as having rights, as well? A pig is more intelligent than a 2 year-old because of mental development, not because of physical capability. That seems, to me, a very important distinction to make.
I only mention pain because it is a quality which many others consider to be of import in this issue. I, for one, don`t think it matters that much, but, others do.
Genetic makeup simply comes with too many problems to
0
Reply
Male 4,547
"Stem cells don`t come from babies"
"The term for babies is relative".

The second negates the first. If your definition of X is subjective, you cannot claim that something does not come from X with any kind of objectivity.

As for pigs and dogs, you are again defeating your own criteria. A pig is more intelligent than a 2 year old. Are you suggesting 2 year olds aren`t people?

Look, if you want to say "I think X", go for it. I don`t give a poo. Don`t even bother with the formation of some chain of logic that relies on argumentation you would never, ever, agree to.

Intelligence determines what a person is? Wrong. Pigs ain`t people. 2 year olds are.

Pain determines it? Wrong. The anesthetized are still people.

Genetic Makeup is consistent, but is distinctly a pro-life choice.

0
Reply
Male 777
Baalthazag:
How is my argument null? I never said there was no biological difference between a fertilized egg and an unfertilized one. My argument was that, seeing as it has next to no human traits (the ability to think, feel pain, etc.), aside from being technically alive, an embryo should not, logically, be considered as anything more than a potential child. It simply is quite a bit closer to fulfilling that potential than an unfertilized egg.
Admittedly, the definition of what a baby is is relative, and this is only my definition, but if you define an embryo as being a person, than what about dogs and pigs? They have far more intelligence and consciousness than an embryo, so shouldn`t they be considered people as well?
As to your abortion comment, if it occurs during the embryonic stage, I don`t consider it something to worry about. The same goes up until the 16-20 week of development. Even after that, though, the physical/mental health of the mother should be the first p
0
Reply
Male 516
"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."

Ummm...in four words or less please? Trying to read that one effing sentence whilst drunk is kind of impossible.

0
Reply
Male 4,547
And lionhart:
Not all stem cells come from embryos. Research suggests those that don`t come from the discarded remains of thousands of babies are actually more useful.

The adult stem cells are likely to be the ones used in the report above, as most Leukemia treatment is done with Adult Stem cells.

Minor detail, but basically any debate about banning this for anti-abortion reasons is silly (They use adult stem cells), and any debate about "how can they dare stop this technology" is 1) irrelevant because they didn`t 2) reversed because the religious right were the ones pushing for adult stem cell research.

0
Reply
Male 4,547
Kaizer:
That argument is null. Your argument is that they are not babies due to some self imposed specific criteria for what you call a baby. It is certainly not "correct". It`s certainly not the same as a potential person.

Simply put:
An unfertilized egg.

is not the same as a fertilized egg

They are different.

Going further:
"They can`t think, feel pain, etc".

Ah, I take it you`re pro-life then. After all, you seem to think they`re babies once they can think or feel pain... that would reduce current abortion limits by 2 to 5 months.

0
Reply
Male 777
Stem cells don`t come from babies, stem cells come from POTENTIAL babies. There is a huge difference. When they take the stem cells, the embryos can`t think, they can`t feel pain, and they are certainly not conscious or intelligent. They are a little pile of cells that might, in time, become a baby.
To put it in perspective, here`s a scenario. If somebody kills somebody else, of childbearing age, should the killer be tried for not only the victims death, but also the deaths of all of the children he or she might have had, were the victim alive? It`s the same situation, really. we just have problems dealing with it because, once an egg is fertilized, it is easier to see the potential child.
Stem cell research doesn`t kill babies, it stops babies from coming into existence, just the same as contraception. Should condoms be outlawed too?
0
Reply
Male 1,204
"
lion heart stem cells come from embryos that are "left over" and otherwise would be disposed of so why not put them to good use like say..finding the cure for aids rather than throwing them in a dumpster"

Actually, many politicians are pushing an agenda so that embryos are created just for stem cells. However, I personally know a doctor from MIT who says that the US has no need for stem cells through embryos, and that there are enough stem cells in other sources to cover up the whole embryo business.


And this news article was already posted here...like a year ago... isn`t news supposed to be... new?

0
Reply
Male 126
lion heart stem cells come from embryos that are "left over" and otherwise would be disposed of so why not put them to good use like say..finding the cure for aids rather than throwing them in a dumpster
0
Reply
Male 8,302
Yeah I dunno about the rest of you but I chop up 3 fetuses every evening and mix it with mineral water to cure all my ills. Stem sells come from murdered babies.
0
Reply
Male 4,547
It`s not exactly a cure.
1/3rd of patients die.
Kidney failure. Temporary liver damage.
"Levy also said it`s unlikely that the transplant truly cured the patient in this study"

It`s cool, but not "kill opposers with my bare hands" cool. Especially saying as conventional drugs doing the same effect are apparently expected in the next 5 years, and the same from stem cells is expected in 20.

0
Reply
Female 741
whoopie
0
Reply
Female 660
saw this on the news..umm last year?
0
Reply
Male 906
hmmmm now lets grow me an arm. plzanthnkyou
0
Reply
Male 603
It seems like we see so many miracle breakthroughs and then never hear of them again.

Only example I can think of at the moment, though, is that "pixy dust" pig`s bladder stuff that regrew that guy`s finger. Or, there was that super carburetor that doubled gas mileage.

0
Reply
Female 188
i read about this when they were saying it would help lupus patients grow new immune systems. Since I have Lupus, i was intrigued to say the least. So now the responsible side of me has given it`s 2 cents worth, the childish, nerdy side of me must speak... ok so when are they gonna be able to use this to give us mutant powers? Cuz where ever the line is, i am THERE!! *crossing fingers for telekenesis and night vision* squeeeee!
0
Reply
Male 10,440
I will personally kill anyone who opposes such awesome medicine with my bare hands. Seems a bit contradictory I know, but thats just how amazing I think it is.
0
Reply
Male 3,014
Despite barriers still present, the cure to AIDS grows ever closer.

Someday soon, we will finally be able to join hands and shout to the skies, "LOL AIDS".

0
Reply
Male 7,933
they basically have treatment for aids thats just as good. You can now have HIV for years and you`ll live a long life.
0
Reply
Male 928
The last guy had a bone marrow transplant, this guy had a stem cell transplant. Anyways, I hope those who opposed the research are sufficiently ashamed of themselves.
0
Reply
Male 45
yeah spp, i think this is the same guy as before
0
Reply
Female 531
I`ve heard of this before i`m sure of it
0
Reply
Female 1,142
The way they describe stem cell transplants freaks me out. D:

Hopefully they figure out how to treat the AIDS with genes more... safely. Yeeeaaah...

0
Reply
Male 1,244
*Too
Sorry for the typo...
0
Reply
Male 1,244
To bad it`s not a surefire cure...
0
Reply
Female 299
is this the same guy as before or a different guy?
0
Reply
Male 1,788
Whoa....cool.
0
Reply
Male 3,819
Ah. Reading the entire article didn`t leave me so hopeful.

I guess it`s progress, though.

::shrugs::

0
Reply
Male 3,819
So odd. Just yesterday, I was thinking to myself about how close they must be to finally finding a cure for AIDS.

0
Reply
Male 4,393
Hmm... that`s interesting...is there any other cases of this happening?
0
Reply
Female 15,763
Link: Man Appears Free of HIV After Stem Cell Transplant [Rate Link] - The donor carried a gene mutation that is naturally resistant to the AIDS virus.
0
Reply