Slashdot Mirror
German Doctor Cures an HIV Patient With a Bone Marrow Transplant
reporter writes "HIV is the virus that causes Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS). Until now, HIV has no cure and has led to the deaths of over 25 million people. However, a possible cure has appeared. Dr. Gero Hutter, a brilliant physician in Germany, replaced the bone marrow of an HIV patient with the bone marrow of a donor who has natural immunity to HIV. The new bone marrow in the patient then produced immune-system cells that are immune to HIV. Being unable to hijack any immune cell, the HIV has simply disappeared. The patient has been free of HIV for about 2 years. Some physicians at UCLA have developed a similar therapy and plan to commercialize it."
Good work ! You've just blocked the immune system response phase. Your patient may still be talking but tonight he will die of the first bug he encounters on the way home. In the extremely unlikely even that he survives the night by tomorrow he'll have a fatal stage of skin cancer, and will die before noon screaming for his skin feels like it's on fire. He'll probably have lost 10 pounds by tomorrow morning though.
Obviously if you block the immune system, yes, you will kill aids in a matter of months. The chances of a patient surviving a day without an immune system are somewhat remote, though. So you might as well leave the AIDS in. It'll be about the same, but the symptoms don't start tonight ...
Congratulations. Well done. "Let's throw a wrench in it" is not the right tactic with the immune system ...
Both of those sources have nothing to do with your argument. They are mainly discussing the relation between drug users and HIV resources. And personally, if you are a drug abuser, I'm all for someone else getting the HIV treatments over you. Someone who got HIV because they slept with the wrong person trumps someone who got HIV because they were shooting up crack, IMO. And there is precedent here. Someone who is a high risk patient (like someone who does serious drugs, etc) is unlikely to get an organ transplant over someone who is not a drug user. You are comparing apples and oranges.
Okay, mister or missus molecular biologist, I'm assuming you think your (likely opposing) opinion isn't idiotic, so why is the PP wrong?
(Granted, I could come up with a few answers myself, and I'm just some guy who makes web pages, but so far, the PP has made a point, and you've just called a few names and dropped your job description. This helps nothing.)
Information wants to be free.
Entertainment wants to be paid.
You just want to be cheap.
Or, we could look at this rationally instead of "hugging the druggies." If you give someone treatment and they are a drug user, there is a good chance that they'll simply go out and contract HIV again before the treatment is complete. I'm assuming that no current treatment available to help control HIV is a one-shot deal. So you worry first about the people who really care about getting treatment, just the same as is done with an organ donation. Because an organ donation can save a life just as HIV treatment does, so yes, the two are comparable. And if you believe that active drug users get easy organ donation, go talk to a Chief Doctor at any local hospital that is rated as an Organ Clinic and you'll get a bit of a shock, I suppose. You were basically saying that people would get punished because they were promiscuous. What I'm saying is that they are getting punished for contracting the disease through drug use and they are still actively using drugs even as they try to get treatment for the disease caused by the drug use. Use some common sense.
Of course he didn't do research. Words can't be trusted. I'm pretty he did the responsible thing and looked it up in his gut.