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."
With the severely limited number of people with known immunity to HIV, and the pain of removing bone marrow, I'm wondering if more than a mere handful of people can be treated via this method.
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
Couldn't the recipients, who will generate the new bone marrow, then be used as donors?
Benford's Corollary to Clarke's Law: "Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced."
Right now, there's a ban on selling organs for donation in this country. However, bone marrow transplants are expensive. If the recipient could later be used as a donor, the ability to pay them for their marrow (thus allowing them to more easily pay for the original transplant) could really help move this thing along. Even if a marrow recipient is reluctant to donate his own marrow, if he had a very large medical bill and was offered money to donate, he would be much more likely to do so.
Of course, given the limited number of naturally HIV-immune people in existence today, it would drive up the price of a transplant in the short term as they demand high prices for their marrow, but in the long run it would even out as we create more HIV-immune people.
The advantage of this method is that, since the stem cells are coming from your own body, there is no graft vs host disease (which is essentially like standard organ rejection, but instead the organ rejected is your entire body being rejected by the graft... you can imagine that this is very bad). Of course, you still have the problem of developing leukemia later from the total body irradiation and viral integration into an important gene. You also have a high risk of death upfront when you spend several weeks without a functional immune system when the transplant is taking. But nevertheless, it's exciting.
One thing I've been wondering about is whether it would be possible to fight infection just by making a protein that binds to CCR5 and does nothing else. I'm presuming that HIV can't attach to the receptor if there's something in the way.
Would any molecular biologist reading this please tell me if this works or not?
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
IIRC i watched a TV doc about HIV immunity and how it was found. there is a link to the black death here too.
AS it was discovered that the very same genes that help immunity from the black death are same for HIV.
if you have none of this gene pair "switched on" then you are gonna get ill quick and die......
if you have one of the pair on then you will go on for a few weeks THEN come down with symptoms.
However with BOTH genes switched on you are immune but carry the black death/HIV virus. Was on the discovery channel....
It was also apparently found that is was only ethnic Europeans who had this gene switched on... this led to some conspiracy theories about HIV/AIDS being created to be targeted at non whites.
NEVER let it be said that a late night spliff to chill out whilst Discovery is on is a waste of your chill time!
But I just don't know if this is the best way to deal with it once someone is infected.
I'd say it isn't, given the nature of a bone marrow transplant (such things always seems so easy on TV.) Still, there may be other ways to transfer this genetic protection to an individual (a retrovirus maybe) so this qualifies as significant progress.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
I have had a bone marrow transplant. No radiation, minimal chemo-like drugs. In the hospital a week or a week and a half, 6 months of outpatient monitoring and I was cured.
For the AIDS treatment to work, they would most likely use something closer to my transplant protocol than the full oblation that they use with cancer patients.
Note to those interested: They dont have to go in with needles or drills to "dig out" the bone marrow from the donor. They give you a drug call the "G" that causes your bone marrow to percolate into your bloodstream. Then they filter it out with a dialysis-type procedure. Its fairly painless. I had it done to save my own marrow in case something went wrong with the transplant.
or you could do a little research yourself before running your mouth off.
in the U.S. there are also conscience clauses in several states that allow pharmacists to refuse to fill a patent's prescription based on religious grounds. this was primarily introduced to to deny women emergency contraceptive pills, but it also opens the door for denying patients other types of medical treatment based on religious prejudices.
>>Black Death is not a virus. It is a bacterium. Yersinia pestis.
Maybe.
Yersina is actually just our best guess, but the modern version of it doesn't match symptoms of the black death from back in the day, so it could be something else entirely.