Report: Scientists finally cure HIV with stem cells?
posted at 7:59 pm on December 14, 2010 by Allahpundit
Big news no matter the circumstances, but in case you stumble across the headline elsewhere and are tempted to think it’s a major breakthrough, I recommend reading this excellent Fox News piece for perspective. The good news, obviously: An HIV-positive patient who was treated for leukemia more than three years ago shows no signs of the virus in his system to this day. Doctors can’t be completely sure that trace amounts aren’t lying dormant somewhere in his body, but as far as they’re able to measure, it’s all gone. He’s the first patient on record to be completely cured.
The bad news: Basically everything else.
The transplant appeared to wipe out both diseases, giving hope to doctors, but Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, who has been studying HIV/AIDS for almost 30 years, said while this is an interesting proof of concept, it’s absurdly impractical.
“It’s hard enough to get a good compatible match for a transplant like this,” Fauci told FoxNews.com, “But you also have to find compatible donor that has this genetic defect, and this defect is only found in 1 percent of the Caucasian population and zero percent of the black population. This is very rare.”…
“This is not prime time to me at all,” he said. “This is a very unusual situation that has little practical application for a simple reason. This donor not only had to be a good compatible match, but the donor had to have a genetic defect of cells that do not express the receptor that the HIV virus needs to enter the cell.”
Fauci also pointed to the fact that this transplant process is not only expensive, it’s incredibly painful and complicated, and requires the patient to start a whole new regimen of drugs.
This was no simple matter of a series of injections. We’re talking about a full bone marrow transplant, described by the Health News article linked above as “essentially rebooting the body’s immune system and creating new white blood cells.” As with any transplant, not every donor is a compatible match for every patient, not every compatible match is willing to donate, and needless to say, not every compatible donor will carry the freak HIV-resistant genetic mutation needed to cleanse the patient’s system of the virus. So you’ve got three high bars to clear right there to “cure” someone; factor in a fourth, that the procedure is expensive and time-consuming, and this looks more like an intriguing lead than something replicable on a wide scale.
Incidentally, it’s not news that some people carry a rare gene that renders them essentially immune from certain fatal diseases. If you’ve ever seen the Black Plague episode of “Secrets of the Dead” — which was the best show evah — you already know that certain European villagers during the Middle Ages inexplicably survived the Black Plague while dozens of people around them were wiped out. HIV researchers took samples from the descendants of those survivors and found an unusually high occurrence of a mutation of the gene CCR5 — which, per the Health News article, just so happens to be the same gene involved in today’s “cure” case. Hmmmm.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Thank you AP for pointing out the science and ignoring the hype.
LincolntheHun on December 14, 2010 at 8:02 PM
$$$$$$$$$$$$$
ninjapirate on December 14, 2010 at 8:03 PM
May I be the first to express my reservations and skepticism? Correct me if I’m wrong, but NO ONE has ever “cured” a virus, have they? The fact that the “cure” results from stem cells also ranks it in the “Suspicious” category. But then, perhaps I’m wrong.
oldleprechaun on December 14, 2010 at 8:04 PM
Sounds like the arsenic based life story. Best to wait and see. Hopefully, it’s true.
mossberg500 on December 14, 2010 at 8:06 PM
That’s really fascinating though and really great analysis.
msmveritas on December 14, 2010 at 8:07 PM
I say we administer blood tests at all TSA gropings, screen for the few donors that there are in that sample, and then put them in a blood
bankfarm so they can contribute to the common good and save lives…/extreme wacky _______.RalphyBoy on December 14, 2010 at 8:14 PM
and microbes feed on arsenic…..
lets see it reproduced. mmkay?
ted c on December 14, 2010 at 8:17 PM
You are welcome…
Seven Percent Solution on December 14, 2010 at 8:21 PM
That is my basic understanding as well. Once you have a virus you have it. You need a vaccine to keep from getting it (which is where the AIDS research should have been focused on IMO).
However the common cold/flu virus does get fought off by the human body everyday, so maybe the re-boot of the immune system via a bone marrow transplant did have a unexpected positive result.
Or maybe it was a miracle.
F15Mech on December 14, 2010 at 8:23 PM
Let me also point out the result is from ADULT STEM CELLS, not the emryonic stem cells (you know, the ones that would make Christopher Reeves walk again if only you Missourians would vote for Claire McKaskill?)
Funny how that works out — 100% of the medical gifts come from the stem cells where you are NOT destroying life.
It’s almost like…. some Creator…. designed that difference…..
picklesgap on December 14, 2010 at 8:36 PM
This is a start. Now they can use genetic engineering to get around the dependence on donors.
pedestrian on December 14, 2010 at 8:36 PM
From this UK site
Could the bone marrow transplant have provided a fresh supply of CD4 cells so he either fought it back or it went back into remission?
I am not a micro-biologist. I just play one on the internet.
F15Mech on December 14, 2010 at 8:37 PM
Don’t go giving them any ideas. Hell, if they have they right to make you buy insurance, as several judges before the sane one in VA disagreed, then they also have the right to make you donate since it is only a matter of time before old age and disease make you a participant in the transplant arena.
abobo on December 14, 2010 at 8:37 PM
This is WAY personal for me, but I want to share with the class…this is something I only did once because I couldn’t take the emotional stress.
I’ve personally seen the face of AIDS. I delivered food to a guy who had it. I wiped the crumbs off his face, the poop out his ass, and the tears from his eyes (and my eyes). He was too weak to do so himself. May he rest in peace. Today’s medicines make living with HIV something that he could only have dreamed of 20 years ago, and I weep for other people I knew who had no chance because they got it way early on before anyone knew what was going on. But I often ask myself and others why we’re spending so much money on something that we now know is preventable (in most cases).
I dunno if there will ever be a wipe-out cure, but I’ll bet it can be fully suppressed one day, and I will rejoice along with everyone else, just like I will when we finally beat cancer, ALS, Alzheimer’s, MS, Parkinson’s…
SouthernGent on December 14, 2010 at 8:41 PM
It makes much more sense to investigate treatments for HIV than manned space flight or a lot of other scientific studies. The results will be applicable for a lot of other diseases.
pedestrian on December 14, 2010 at 8:56 PM
F15Mech on December 14, 2010 at 8:57 PM
-
Ya know… They will only do this if it’s a PC disease… Otherwise, we’re safe… Oh wait a sec…
-
But really, if I thought of it… and I’m 51% normal most of the time… I’m sure the wacky folks I mentioned are already writing college papers on it… and getting A’s/grants for the effort.
-
RalphyBoy on December 14, 2010 at 9:01 PM
Except from what I understand HIV is a complex virus that mutates very often and therefore hard to study.
I would like to see money spent where it can get the best return (help the most people) not on something that sadly has become political issue.
F15Mech on December 14, 2010 at 9:02 PM
Patients are “cured” diseases (viruses) are eradicated (like small pox).
AIDS attacks a specific part of the immune system, which is made from bone marrow (like all blood cells), so it may be that irradiatating all the guys working marrow and the natural die off of his white blood cells is why he is “cured”.
LincolntheHun on December 14, 2010 at 9:03 PM
Most viruses mutate, but the usual methods of creating an inoculation, using Cowpox on an orphan boy to prove it stops Small Pox, is not PC, chickens don’t get AIDS, and SIV (Monkey AIDS) is different so we are having to spend a lot of time an effort to understand HIV. While we may never get a cure or even a vaccine there is lots of new stuff about how infections work, gene therapy, an so on, that we are learning.
Besides high cholesterol leading to heart disease is the world’s biggest killer, but are we going to ban bacon to stop evil LDL’s?
Of course not.
LincolntheHun on December 14, 2010 at 9:10 PM
LincolntheHun on December 14, 2010 at 9:03 PM
I hadn’t considered small pox. I was thinking more along the line of the common cold or influenza. Or any of the forms of herpes. What we once called “fever blisters” are, I believe a either a form of herpes, or result from a person carrying herpes. (If I’m talking through my hat, anyone who can straighten me out please feel free to jump in at any time. My medical knowledge is pretty much limited to calling 9-1-1 or driving myself to the local ER.) At my age, my doctor likes to see that I get a flu shot every fall, but AIDS isn’t something against which there is any known vaccination, right? That IS what these researchers are talking about, yes?
oldleprechaun on December 14, 2010 at 9:14 PM
LincolntheHun on December 14, 2010 at 9:10 PM
When you start talking about banning bacon, you are no longer my friend.
oldleprechaun on December 14, 2010 at 9:16 PM
Way more interested in potential cures for cancer, Alzheimer’s, or Krohn’s personally.
Once again though, adult stem cells are the way to go. Embryonic was always a liberal money hole.
Grayson on December 14, 2010 at 9:23 PM
So butchering human beings so people who engage in homosexual behaviors and acquire a lethal viral infection can live is the idea…
Lourdes on December 14, 2010 at 9:26 PM
Yes, that is precisely the idea. Spot on analysis!
Jeddite on December 14, 2010 at 9:35 PM
Lourdes on December 14, 2010 at 9:26 PM
I realize AIDS is a hot button issue, but do you think maybe that’s a little harsh?
oldleprechaun on December 14, 2010 at 9:39 PM
As I understand it, the bone marrow DONOR has a very rare kind of blood cell that does not have the receptor that HIV needs in order to infect the cells. So if the virus cannot attack the cells, then he is cured.
Now someone can correct me if I’m wrong.
American Elephant on December 14, 2010 at 9:40 PM
Absolutely true, researchers hope, one day, yada yada
Not really, the disease was eradicated from him like a gangrenous toe being removed and a new one grafted back on. There was no “vaccination”, the guy happened to be able to receive a marrow transfusion from someone who has a natural immunity.
So now the guy has that natural immunity, perhaps.
LincolntheHun on December 14, 2010 at 9:41 PM
Correct. He is “cured” in that he is now immune.
LincolntheHun on December 14, 2010 at 9:43 PM
Buddy heteros get HIV/AIDS as well just FYI.
From unprotected sex (either consensual or rape)
From tainted blood donations-if you gave or received blood before 1992 you are at risk (I was at risk and got tested prior to my first time donating for simple peace of mind)
From intravenous drug use
From the “vaccine gun” in use by all branches of the U.S. military until the mid-90s
SgtSVJones on December 14, 2010 at 9:45 PM
1. The stem cells came from an ADULT who is, I assume, still very much alive to this day, so, I’m not sure who it is you believe is being butchered. And
2. The entire CONTINENT of Africa (not to mention the rest of the world) is filled with MILLIONS of people who got HIV from heterosexual contact. Do your callous hate and malice extend to them as well, or is it reserved only for gays?
3. Please tell me you aren’t a Christian! If you are, you are a disgrace to the entire faith.
American Elephant on December 14, 2010 at 9:51 PM
Aren’t hommosexual acivities considered “consenting” between “adults”?
Isn’t HIV a viral infection acquired (nearly always) by that “consentual” activity?
Taking the lives of unborn children so their cells can be chopped up and recycled: no one asks the children.
Abortion isn’t consentual. The victims of abortion are not asked if they want to live or die, they can’t defend themselves, they cannot ask for attorneys, medical help, a protector, peers to assist them, or “more time”. Their lives are taken, and taken brutally, from them, there’s nothing consentual about it to the victims.
HIV is an acquired infection and most of the acquisitions are by informed adults who take the risks knowledgeably.
I certainly don’t find it entertaining that anyone suffer any infection such as that, but, in any comparison with the remains of human beings whose lives have been taken without any ability by those victims to even defend themselves or so much as have a conversation about the whys and wherefores, my sympathy lies with the human beings who are utterly defenseless, not with the “consenting adults” who share infections.
Lourdes on December 14, 2010 at 10:10 PM
I’m certainly aware that heterosexuals acquire HIV.
The point made here is that many a human being who has lost their life (not consentually) by abortion and then been used to benefit others should bear the greatest sympathy by any considerate civilization in the range of what matters, ethically, bio-ethically.
Infectious agents are acquired. MOST of those are among persons who are informed of the risks and take the actions disregarding the risks. I’m sorry if they acquire bad things afterward, but, they’re hardly being “forced” to acquire HIV as an unborn human being IS being “forced” to lose their life.
Lourdes on December 14, 2010 at 10:14 PM
SOME stem cells are not embryonic stem cells (and shouldn’t be for biological reasons if no others but that’s not what’s “popularly” sought for many a trendy reason, science discarded).
I acknowledge and certainly understand the suffering caused by HIV. My point earlier was to address the disregard many an adult displays toward the “worth” of the human life while in the womb, versus adults infected by acquired illness most of whom are well informed of the risks involved with the behaviors by which the infection is acquired.
No reason to deny those infected with the best possible care afterward, but, bioethically, the worth of “stem cells” is often minimized just as embryos themselves are, as the unborn human is. Humans in the womb have no choice and are not asked if they want to “donate” their bodies to service adults, others, etc. And many a stem cell continues to be “harvested” from the aborted remains of human beings.
Lourdes on December 14, 2010 at 10:19 PM
What?! Ghastly, evil statement there.
I’m — in your head — not “Christian” because I respect the worth of human life in the womb, the unborn, and oppose abortion?
Thank you for your hateful snide, Ms. Sibelius or Nancy Pelosi.
Lourdes on December 14, 2010 at 10:21 PM
A very sick, evil thing for you to express. A very sick, evil thing for you to express. Sorry for you.
Lourdes on December 14, 2010 at 10:21 PM
I don’t deny providing care to any suffering, sick person. Including you. You will have my prayers.
Lourdes on December 14, 2010 at 10:22 PM
The rampant rape and promiscuity is to be lauded, as is homosexual behaviour.
Right?
Inanemergencydial on December 14, 2010 at 10:25 PM
No, actually ALL of the stem cells used in this case, and indeed, ALL the stem cells currently being used in ANY treatment given to humans are NOT embryonic.
You also suggested that because homosexuality, specifically, is consensual, that that should somehow qualify our mercy and compassion. Guess what? Heterosexuality is also consensual and there are more heterosexual people in the world with HIV than homosexuals. Smoking is consensual — should that limit our mercy towards people with lung, mouth, throat or tongue cancer? FAT is consensual — should that limit our mercy towards people who have heart attacks, strokes, aneurysms because they eat like pigs and don’t exercise?
The truth is that you shot your loud, ignorant, shamefully unmerciful mouth off without having the faintest clue what you were talking about and now are trying to CYA.
American Elephant on December 14, 2010 at 10:30 PM
While heterosexuals do contract the disease, please read the CDC rates regarding transmission. You will notice that heterosexual transmission through intercourse was contracted when one party was involved in risky behaviors.
jeffNWV on December 14, 2010 at 10:43 PM
Congratulations, you have just announced to the world that you are intellectually incapable of distinguishing between endorsing sin and showing compassion to sinners.
Fortunately for you, Jesus died for sinners — including the sin of believing the mote in others’ eyes are worse than the lumber yard in your own. :)
American Elephant on December 14, 2010 at 10:51 PM
No, you are un-Christian because, as I already explained, this story has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO with life in the womb. NOTHING. ZERO. NADA. Completely unrelated. And because you directly implied that the fact that homosexuality is consensual should somehow limit our mercy towards gays with HIV — that they deserve what they got:
Your words, no one else’s.
American Elephant on December 14, 2010 at 10:53 PM
Jeff,
That is NOT what your source says. Your source says they got HIV through heterosexual sex with a person who had HIV:
Guess what? That’s the same way homosexuals get it — by having sex with someone who has HIV.
HIV isn’t spontaneously created, it is passed from one infected person to another. But your own source confirms the number who got infected through HETEROSEXUAL sex.
American Elephant on December 14, 2010 at 11:02 PM
Right!
Inanemergencydial on December 14, 2010 at 11:11 PM
From the CDC’s site: Heterosexual contact with a person known to have, or to be at high risk for, HIV infection.
According to the site:
Male-to-male sexual contact 17,758
Injection drug use 5,811
Male-to-male sexual contact and injection drug use 1,704
So, who is high risk? The most risk it Male-to-male sexual contact Heterosexuals who contract HIV engage in sexual contact with those who have a high risk of HIV.
jeffNWV on December 14, 2010 at 11:12 PM
BTW, unlike heterosexual contact, it doesn’t say transmission via male-to-male sexual contact only occurs with “contact with a person known to have, or to be at high risk for, HIV infection.”
Why wouldn’t they make that clarification, if they made it for heterosexual contact?
jeffNWV on December 14, 2010 at 11:27 PM
Not quite. They got it by engaging in HETEROSEXUAL sex with people who had HIV.
(EVERYONE who gets HIV gets it from someone who has it)
Yes, its true that in the US, more gays get HIV. And that it is much easier to pass through gay sex. That’s common knowledge.
But for some strange reason you are trying to suggest that straight people who get HIV from straight sex somehow don’t count because they got it from somebody who already had it.
Hello? McFly, EVERYONE who gets it, gets it from someone who had it. The relevant point is not that, the relevant point is that yes, they got it through heterosexual sex.
As did the vast majority of HIV infected people in the world.
No, Im not saying that straight sex is riskier. Im saying that the vast majority of people who have HIV in the world got it from risky, unprotected heterosexual sex. Nothing you have said changed that fact.
So straight people who get HIV deserve it for engaging in known risky behavior?
And I’m also saying that HOW someone got it doesn’t give anyone an excuse to have less compassion for them.
When you have a heart attack shall I tell your family that you deserved it for getting fat? Everyone knows that that is high risk behavior. My point is that trying to justify callous, unmerciful behavior with statistics is wrong and yes, sinful.
American Elephant on December 14, 2010 at 11:35 PM
That’s how I understood it as well. They basically replaced his old immune system with a new one that can’t get infected in the first place. Oddly enough these articles kind of miss the most important thing about a bone marrow transplant. They’re really freaking dangerous. I mean it depends on the situation but death rates from this procedure are between 10 and 20 percent. (IE 10 to 20 percent of people are dead in under a month from the procedure.) It’s really hard to think of a medical procedure that is actually more dangerous than a bone marrow transplant.
Dave_d on December 14, 2010 at 11:40 PM
It’s not a cure, but an interesting lead. However, in biology, proof of concept is very valuable, it’s hard to know that something that works in a petri dish will work in a rat or a human.
Also, as Allah points out this is far from a practical treatment. Another potential pitfall: The HIV virus might easily mutate in the future to use a different receptor.
bitsy on December 15, 2010 at 9:05 AM
In other disease cure news, Dynavax (DVAX) hit a 52 week high after announcing positive Phase 1a and 1b data for their novel TLR9-agonist candidate universal influenza vaccine.
Terp Mole on December 15, 2010 at 9:10 AM
No, this particular case has nothing to do with embryonic stem cells. No human being was “butchered” anywhere in the process. Someone gave their consent to donate bone marrow. It’s just like someone consenting to donate a kidney or blood. Bone marrow just happens to be composed of adult stem cells, but the procedure is really more analogous to organ donation.
Bone marrow transplants are a procedure that has been around for at least 20 years to treat people with leukemia. What makes this case special is that the donor just happened to have a mutation that makes him resistant to HIV and the recipient with leukemia just happens to be HIV positive.
Also, for all we know, the patient could be a little kid with leukemia who got HIV from his mother.
bitsy on December 15, 2010 at 9:23 AM
I know that finding the right match is difficult. How difficult? I have been on the bone marrow donor registry (now called Be The Match) for over twenty-five years. In all that time I have only received one request to donate blood for a more thorough test (not a close enough match unfortunately). How many, like me, are on the donor list and never called? How many out there are searching for a donor and never find one? Want to do something good? Go to http://www.marrow.org and find out how.
Extrafishy on December 15, 2010 at 9:54 AM
Just wanted this to get a second look. Well said.
inviolet on December 15, 2010 at 10:16 AM
Maybe because it’s redundant and didn’t need to be said with heteros. It’s not a gay disease. It’s a disease spread through the blood. Just having gay sex isn’t enough.
Esthier on December 15, 2010 at 11:17 AM
Funny that atheist Ace didn’t feel the need to censor the “adult” from the “stem cells” headline of his post about this yesterday. He even thought that was a salient point about the story. So how about an honest rewrite of the headline to include “adult” or “non-embryonic”, Allah?
andycanuck on December 15, 2010 at 11:42 AM
That is obviously true. However, people often use the case of an advance through the use of stem cells as an imperative to expand use of embryonic stem cells. So if the slogan is “Stem cells CURE AIDS!” you can be sure that people will push to “butcher” more fetuses. After all, Allah’s point is that the study is hyped to begin with. I think what Lourdes is looking at is the marketing–which is marginally interested in the case at hand. Thus, granting the “freedom” to engage in risky behaviors at the expense of some proto-human biological cell factories.
Axeman on December 15, 2010 at 12:51 PM