Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Gene Therapy May Thwart HIV

Posted by Soulskill on from the genes-need-to-talk-about-their-feelings-too dept.

sciencehabit writes "Over the past few years, a man living in Berlin, Timothy Brown, has become world famous as the first — and thus far only — person to apparently have been cured of his HIV infection. Brown's HIV disappeared after he developed leukemia and doctors gave him repeated blood transfusions from a donor who harbored a mutated version of a receptor the virus uses to enter cells. Now, researchers report promising results from two small gene-therapy studies that mimic this strategy, hinting that the field may be moving closer to a cure that works for the masses."

108 of 171 comments (clear)

  1. Man if it cures HIV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Then you know what it will do? Put thousands of people out of work!

    Think of the Pharmacists!

    1. Re:Man if it cures HIV by DataDiddler · · Score: 1

      I'll trade in the pharmacists for unfettered, unprotected sex for all. A world without STDs would be an awesome world, indeed. Seinfeld's dream of an intercourse hello would be realized.

      --
      Working...
    2. Re:Man if it cures HIV by CruelKnave · · Score: 1

      I know you're joking, but I really wouldn't put it past them. The world has seen greed turn a profit on suffering before, and I really wouldn't be surprised if something came about to hinder the development or application of a cure, if one is ever reached.

    3. Re:Man if it cures HIV by andydread · · Score: 1

      Actually maybe not so much. Then you will have to deal with even a faster rate of population growth. STDs in modern times seem to help to slow population growth in a crude way. Also people use more condoms and thereby reduce the rate of pregnancies. So you have a few factors at play.

    4. Re:Man if it cures HIV by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 1

      That must be why Africa has so few problems with overpopulation oh wai---

    5. Re:Man if it cures HIV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That must be why Africa has so few problems with overpopulation oh wai---

      Except Africa does not have problems with overpopulation.. see a map of countries by population density

      Africa has problems with poverty and corruption and tribal warfare, not population density.

    6. Re:Man if it cures HIV by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1

      No problem: I've heard saunas and gay bath houses are hiring...

    7. Re:Man if it cures HIV by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      We had that in the '70s. It was awesome!

      --
      Free Martian Whores!
    8. Re:Man if it cures HIV by jnelson4765 · · Score: 1

      I realized in the early 90s, as soon as they announced a proper cure for HIV, there will be f**king in the streets. It is impossible to say how much of a stamp of fear AIDS has put on a lot of people. We will be heading for a free-love generation that made the 60s look like a bunch of tossers...

      --
      Why can't I mod "-1 Idiot"?
    9. Re:Man if it cures HIV by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 1

      It's cities also have big problems with family planning and their growth rates.

    10. Re:Man if it cures HIV by daem0n1x · · Score: 1

      But then we're all going to burn in hell!

    11. Re:Man if it cures HIV by Ksevio · · Score: 1

      This is just another Liberal plot by Obama to hurt the job creators!

  2. Google delta CCR5. This is old. by wierd_w · · Score: 4, Informative

    The delta CCR5 mutation was already well known, and the subject of several (at least 4) different experimental receptor blocking and gene therapy medications, all of which were blocked by the FDA citing safety concerns.

    This is not meant to be a conspiracy theorist bottom feeding post, but simply intended to inform. There have been many studies of this mutation for thereputic uses conducted in Europe over the past decade, including seeveral promising phase 2 trials.

    Like most life saving medications though, any prospective cure for HIV will probably be developed in the US, and approved in Europe. (Then approved in the US after decades of routine use overseas.)

    While this particular gene therapy might be new, the mechanism is not novel.

    1. Re:Google delta CCR5. This is old. by wierd_w · · Score: 2

      What I am getting at, is that this mechanism has been the subject of clinical trial medications in the past, and refused acceptance every time.

      While the delta CCR5 mutation appears benign in humans under most circumstances, the burden of proving such benality imposed by the FDA will likely be insurmountable, and as such, even if this stuff kills off HIV infection in 24 hours of application, it will probably never get approval in the US.

    2. Re:Google delta CCR5. This is old. by hedwards · · Score: 1

      Which is reasonable. HIV isn't exactly something that is typically spread without some participation on the part of the person contracting the virus. Sure some people genuinely do get it via rape, but the numbers aren't a significant portion of the population.

      Messing around with genes is risky business and at this point HIV is similar in danger to diabetes. But, it's also easily preventable and mainly spreads because people are too ignorant and lazy to protect themselves.

    3. Re:Google delta CCR5. This is old. by wierd_w · · Score: 2

      In the cases of receptor blocking medications, there were sticky issues involving elevated liver enzymes, iirc. This caused the fda to reject. (Essentially the blockers are large protiens that bind to the receptor and plug it up like a cork, so the virus cannot dock. The body has to break down these foreign bodies in the liver to eliminate them, which causes elevated liver enzymes. A condition known to induce liver failure. Yes, several distinct medications were blocked by this decision.)

      The gene therapy trials were halted, because of issues involving reliability of the gene therapy's proper integration into the host genome in a reliable way. (EG, that the vector was consistent in how it integrated the new gene, and that the process did not increase risks for cancers in already immunosuppressed patients with aids.)

      Overshadowing both thorny issues was the question of if the actual deactivation of CCR5 (the mutation deletes a good portion of the gene that produces this receptor, making the cell produce nonfunctional versions) would itself be safe over the long run. Several studies have been comissioned to address this very subject, and initial results indicate that the delta32 CCR5 mutation increases risks of several nasty infectious agents, such as west nile.

      Until these issues are addressed, it is unlikey that the US FDA will approve any CCR5 blocking/disrupting medications.

      This is why I said that it is likey to be approved in Europe, and not the US.

    4. Re:Google delta CCR5. This is old. by Baloroth · · Score: 1

      Many people who contract HIV are neither stupid nor ignorant, but they are unfortunate enough to live in a country where protection is not available or is socially stigmatized (often due to religions imported from the western world) and are having promiscuous sex or sex with promiscuous people.

      FTFY. Ok, yeah, people can be born with it (which sucks) or get it through rape or blood transfusions... but simply, you know, restraining yourself and not acting like a rabbit generally makes you invulnerable to, oh, every STD ever. God forbid we should oppose people's right to have as much sex as they want with whomever they want, though. I would argue that having promiscuous sex counts as "stupid" when you can't or don't use protection (or possibly know you partner is clean).

      For that matter, HIV is supposed to have originated from monkeys. Yeah, I'll let your mind imagine how an STD migrated from a monkey to a human...

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    5. Re:Google delta CCR5. This is old. by rabtech · · Score: 1

      I might point out that FDA rejection of thalidomide saved thousands of children from being born as flipper babies.

      There have been strong calls for informed participation in clinical trials, especially for terminally ill patients. The FDA has been very responsive as far as I am aware.

        I suggest not operating on rumor or whatever Fox News is peddling and check the facts for yourself. It isn't difficult.

      --
      Natural != (nontoxic || beneficial)
    6. Re:Google delta CCR5. This is old. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No need to imagine anything. HIV is more than an STD, it's a bloodborne disease. Bushmeat is commonly consumed in Africa because of either tradition or lack of better dietary options. If a hunter has a cut or a sore and is exposed to monkey blood (very likely given that he/she is you know... hunting) viral transmission is highly likely.

      As for your antiquated ideas on promiscuity, I suggest you get a firm grasp on reality and take a look at how successful abstinence-only education has been around the world. Those of us in the medical field are acutely aware of how difficult it is to alter basic human behaviors.

    7. Re:Google delta CCR5. This is old. by Demonoid-Penguin · · Score: 1

      Many people who contract HIV are neither stupid nor ignorant, but they are unfortunate enough to live in a country where protection is not available or is socially stigmatized (often due to religions imported from the western world) and are having promiscuous sex or sex with promiscuous people.

      FTFY. Ok, yeah, people can be born with it (which sucks) or get it through rape or blood transfusions... but simply, you know, restraining yourself and not acting like a rabbit generally makes you invulnerable to, oh, every STD ever. God forbid we should oppose people's right to have as much sex as they want with whomever they want, though. I would argue that having promiscuous sex counts as "stupid" when you can't or don't use protection (or possibly know you partner is clean).

      For that matter, HIV is supposed to have originated from monkeys. Yeah, I'll let your mind imagine how an STD migrated from a monkey to a human...

      Do think bringing GOD into this makes your opinions any less repugnant (or wrong).

      If GOD created man in his image how come you lumber around the planet?

    8. Re:Google delta CCR5. This is old. by John+Bresnahan · · Score: 1

      I know of at least one time when the FDAs reluctance to approve a new drug turned out to be a very good decision.

      Thalidomide

    9. Re:Google delta CCR5. This is old. by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 2
      There's a huge difference:
      • thalidomide was a medication intended to cure a trivial condition (morning sickness) with gruesome side-effects on a third party (the kid).
      • this new AIDS treatment is intended to cure a deadly disease, with side-effects that only affect the patient himself.

      So, it looks like the risk/reward relationship is slightly different in both cases, doesn't it...

    10. Re:Google delta CCR5. This is old. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's a difficult question, and one that the FDA is bad at publicly addressing. The FDA is much more conservative than the European regulators, and this appears to be good if you're an epidemiologist and bad if you're suffering. For example, replacement disks: They've been pretty standard treatment in Europse for more than a decade, while we're still fuzing backs. The FDA's concern is that the European studies only study Europeans, who have different *blah blah blah*'s. than Americans. However, being a moderately healthy white guy, I fit the European demographic pretty well. So why can't I get the replacement disk? Well, "we can't be too sure" On the other hand, parent poster is right, the European drug regulators have accepted a higher risk and allowed worse consequences, with more progress in medicine.

      Another thing to consider is that the stronger clinical trials required in the US wickedly increase the cost of getting a drug to market besides lowering the probability (probabbly a good thing, if you're the 0.1% affected by a horrible side affect) that it will get to market. However, there are tens of thousands of people suffering today because Vioxx was the only drug available that actually helped their pain. Costs and benefits.

    11. Re:Google delta CCR5. This is old. by limaxray · · Score: 1

      He's not operating on rumor, he's absolutely correct. This type of thing happens all the time - a drug is developed in the US and approval is easily achieved in Europe, Australia, New Zealand, etc, and then it takes several more years to gain FDA approval. Most Phase 2 trials are performed in these countries because its just so much easier to get approval and then test it on the thousands of patients required to make the FDA happy.

      Before you go on about how noble the FDA is about saving lives, I suggest you work with them first. They are far more dedicated to maintaining their bureaucracy than actually saving lives. They require filling out paperwork on filling out paperwork. And its not like people are dropping like flies in other industrial nations that have more efficient approval processes.

      Furthermore, if you want to blame high drug prices in the US on anything, this is the problem right here - the gross majority of employees in any big pharma company are responsible for some FDA requirement. On the upside, they do create a ton of jobs.

    12. Re:Google delta CCR5. This is old. by heathen_01 · · Score: 1

      Furthermore, if you want to blame high drug prices in the US on anything, this is the problem right here - the gross majority of employees in any big pharma company are responsible for some FDA requirement. On the upside, they do create a ton of jobs.

      Glass making is a far better job than filling out paper work. Also is far more exciting smashing the windows in the first place.

    13. Re:Google delta CCR5. This is old. by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      But, at the end of the day, the methodology for demonstrating the effectiveness of the therapies is the same.

      This reminds of all that BS about multiple sclerosis vein theory, and all the M.S. lobby groups demanding governments pay for it and fast-track the research, despite the fact that dozens of researchers who were experts in M.S. were more than a little dubious and insisted that any potential therapy needs to be adequately tested. And now a bunch of quacks in Latin American countries offer it and lo and behold, you have M.S. sufferers dying of strokes and the like because they jumped the gun, and there's still no evidence that the vein theory is even right.

      You either have science-based medicine, or you just have the throw-shit-at-the-wall-and-see-what-sticks medicine.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    14. Re:Google delta CCR5. This is old. by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      So why can't I get the replacement disk?

      You haven't heard of medical tourism?

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    15. Re:Google delta CCR5. This is old. by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Like most life saving medications though, any prospective cure for HIV will probably be developed in the US, and approved in Europe. (Then approved in the US after decades of routine use overseas.)

      So, HIV is likely to be wiped out in Africa before the US?

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    16. Re:Google delta CCR5. This is old. by d34thm0nk3y · · Score: 1

      cure for HIV will probably be developed in the US, and approved in Europe. (Then approved in the US after decades of routine use overseas.)

      Sounds like decades of free human testing to me...

  3. Re:Cure for the masses by damicatz · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The difference is, with this, all someone has to do is patent the gene and then they can charge whatever they want.

    At least with spaceships and computers, you actually have to create something.

  4. Re:No cure, ever. Not in America. by bluemonq · · Score: 2

    Well shit, I guess I still have malaria.

  5. Re:Cure for the masses by bluemonq · · Score: 1

    Software patents?

  6. The masses? by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    Um, I don't think this is going to work for the masses, even if we can now do DNA sequencing for about 1/10th what it cost just two years ago, and we have protein folding solutions for HIV thanks to the work of the UW's Baker Lab and all you great volunteers.

    Look, the vast and overwhelming quantity of infections are in areas where not only are people very very poor (no, poorer than that, think a couple hundred dollars a year for a family), but they have 2-3 other major infectious diseases to cope with.

    This "solution" may provide promise for First World Nations, and the rich elites in the world, but that's about it.

    Sheer economics. Polluted/dirty water is the major problem worldwide, quite frankly, ask any epidemiologist.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    1. Re:The masses? by thehodapp · · Score: 1

      Although think about the purging of Polio and other 19th century diseases. I can't see a virus that has had this much impact on the world to not be very financially backed by donations and continued research to make the cure cheaper. If this was a lesser known disease, then I might say you were right, but HIV has been a different beast altogether.

    2. Re:The masses? by hedwards · · Score: 1

      The diseases that catch the imagination aren't necessarily the bad ones. Breast cancer gets considerably more funding and attention than is justified when compared with the mortality rate and ability to treat it.

    3. Re:The masses? by rthille · · Score: 1

      That's because we really love boobies!

      --
      Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
    4. Re:The masses? by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      Ever think that the mortality rate is low because we have the ability to treat it purely because of the funding and attention that it gets?

      Besides which, having personally known two people to have suffered from and survived breast cancer (including a girlfriend at the time) I personally have no problem with focussing on it, especially as it in no way precludes others from focussing on other conditions.

      --
      It's official. Most of you are morons.
    5. Re:The masses? by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      And what was the mortality rate from breast cancer fifty years ago?

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  7. Re:No cure, ever. Not in America. by bluemonq · · Score: 1

    Pretty sure GP meant physician.

  8. Time for Captain Obvious by erice · · Score: 2

    I'll trade in the pharmacists for unfettered, unprotected sex for all. A world without STDs would be an awesome world, indeed. Seinfeld's dream of an intercourse hello would be realized.

    Um. HIV is one that gives people the chills today but there are other STD's. Some, like genital herpes are highly contageous and incurable. Hepatitis C is less contageous but also incurable and potentially lethal. There are even antibiotic resistance forms of gonorrhea.

    1. Re:Time for Captain Obvious by alexborges · · Score: 1

      Genital herpes is a non issue for the most part.... its a bad example, but you are still right though. Sifilis, although curable, if it goes undetected can even cause dementia given enough time. Papiloma Virus can cause cancer and kill you even if you are a man... and a host others.

      Its great they if they could cure HIV because its expensive to treat, terribly painful and even its most advanced treatment as it is, guarantees nothing much (treatment itself is toxic and you have to take it for life) plus you remain infectious (although it can be reduced). And thats the biggest problem: its impossible to detect without proactive testing and can remain so for years. And all that time, the sick is infectious.

      So yeah, no thoughtless condomless sex for anyone, but yeah, lets cure this thing. Its a danger to everyone.

      --
      NO SIG
    2. Re:Time for Captain Obvious by syousef · · Score: 1

      So yeah, no thoughtless condomless sex for anyone, but yeah, lets cure this thing. Its a danger to everyone.

      Unfortunately there's plenty of that right now for many people - it just has consequences.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    3. Re:Time for Captain Obvious by Demonoid-Penguin · · Score: 2

      Genital herpes is a non issue for the most part

      Uh what? Because it doesn't kill you - just makes you wish you were dead.... fuck that! If I had a choice between syphillis or herpes (and no other choice) - I'd take syphillis. That I can get treated - and I could be honest about having it, use protection, and still get laid. You do not want to fuck with someone who would fuck you, if you had herpes.

    4. Re:Time for Captain Obvious by antifoidulus · · Score: 2

      It's a non-issue in the developed world where(outside of the US of course....) HIV is quite rare. However genital herpes, in either partner of a discordant couple, increases the odds of catching HIV considerably. The sores, often not even visible, defeat the skin barrier that keeps HIV out of the system most of the time. Furthermore, HIV tends to pool in very high concentration in herpes sores, significantly increasing the chance that it will be spread.

      If we cannot develop an affordable HIV vaccine/treatment, we could still go a long way towards preventing more cases by coming up with vaccines for HSV(as well as other STDs). We already have a vaccine that is effective against certain HPV strains, and it looks like a herpes vaccine may be possible. However, there is little interest in vaccines against chlamydia and gonorrhea since they are so easily(and cheaply) treatable in the rich world. However, completely eradicating them without a vaccine would be difficult if not impossible.

      --
      Monstar L
    5. Re:Time for Captain Obvious by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Sorry I don;t have a citation (I'm sure Google does) but a study was recently stopped because the results were obvious early and were life-savers. If they catch it early and treat it aggressively, HIV is nearly impossible to transmit -- after two years in the four year study, many patients using the old treatments' partners caught HIV, but not a single one of the ones treated early and aggressively had a partner who caught it.

      I don't remember how large the study was, but the researchers seemed pretty excited about it.

      Someone earlier mentioned Hepatitis C, that disease is hard to catch -- you have to either share needles with an infected person, or be the recipient of anal sex.

      --
      Free Martian Whores!
    6. Re:Time for Captain Obvious by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      Also worth noting that as with any disease, rare but serious complications can arise. Birth defects are possible. The virus can also suddenly take a liking to your eyes, Herpes is the leading cause of blindness in one eye.

      A disease is ONLY a non-issue when it is eradicated completely.

  9. No way! by kusanagi374 · · Score: 1

    Hold it right there!

    As if HIV was the only STD and the others weren't dangerous or troublesome. Even today, HIV is the least of my concern. There is also HepB/C, HPV, Herpes, Syphilis... And unlike HIV, the infections usually come and go and you never know if you're still transmitting or if it'll get worse and cause cancer after a few decades (Hepatitis and HPV, specifically) either to you or your loved one.

    1. Re:No way! by DataDiddler · · Score: 1

      But if you remove HIV you're certainly working towards such an event. I also *might* have been slightly facetious.

      --
      Working...
    2. Re:No way! by insertwackynamehere · · Score: 1

      Syphilis? Come on man, this isn't the 19th century. You get syphilis you realize it and see a doctor. Some antibiotics later and you are cured. How can you compare that to HIV? Herpes would suck but it's common and controllable.. It doesn't result in slowly wasting away taking 100s of pills a day as you are treated like some sort of leper who is already dead. HPV I believe is already covered by a recent vaccine and hepatitis would suck but you can get it in other ways then sex anyway. HIV is the winner for current most devastating global disease also tied to sex and I don't even know how you could argue otherwise.

    3. Re:No way! by kusanagi374 · · Score: 1

      Syphilis = kinda agreed
      Herpes = it's annoying as fuck but agreed
      HPV = vaccine is only for two types and they are not the ones that cause cancer... the other non-genital types? I don't care about 'em.
      HIV = kinda biased, the country where I live in (Brazil) gives away the medication since they broke the patents and chug away low cost pills without paying royalties

      I don't know, but it's my opinion that a bomb ticking that you never know if/when it'll hit and take you or someone you love is much worse than something YOU KNOW is there and can easily control it free of cost.

    4. Re:No way! by Miamicanes · · Score: 1

      Actually, you could probably argue that there's a certain amount of de-facto herd immunity in places with antibiotic abuse, simply because people who get infected by syphilis are likely to come down with a sore throat or upper respiratory infection, and head home with a prescription for some powerful broad-spectrum antibiotic likely to blow the syphilis away with trivial ease long before they ever realized they HAD syphilis. Apparently, syphilis is pretty easy to cure, and even penicillin is good enough to do the job in most cases (let alone something like Levaquin, Zithromax, Velosef, Biaxin, or Keflex).

    5. Re:No way! by sourcerror · · Score: 1

      It's also a great way to breed resistant strains of syphilis (and other bacteria).

    6. Re:No way! by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 3, Informative

      Uh, the HPV vaccine IS for the types of HPV that cause cancer. That's the entire point of the vaccination program. It is not a cure for all possible types of cervical cancer (only ~60% of them) but the HPV strains it vaccinates against are those linked to cancer + some other common ones (to encourage men to get the vaccine too and thus promote herd immunity).

    7. Re:No way! by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 2

      Not really. To breed resistant strains of anything you need to have survivors. For example, the big problem with antibiotic resistant tuberculosis is people being non-compliant with their antibiotic regimes. So they get it, take the course for a few weeks or so and feel better, and then decide to stop taking the pills or start being lazy about keeping up to the schedule (which is 6-24 months).

      As a result, they haven't actually cleared the entire infection, instead they've neatly selected for the slightly more antibiotic resistant strains of TB, which they may end up passing off into the general population if they become infectious again.

      TB is particularly prone to this since it's difficult to treat in the first case (somewhat antibiotic resistant by nature, requiring prolonged treatments). It is much, much harder to develop resistance when you wipe out the entire population of something in one hit since there are no survivors to reproduce a new resistant strain.

    8. Re:No way! by Fjandr · · Score: 1

      Anyone who takes a Seinfeld reference seriously needs to be shot. Actually, let's just shoot Seinfeld.

  10. Re:Cure for the masses by thehodapp · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I doubt not. Think of all the vaccines you're covered by now. Influenza, Polio, Hepatitis, etc. Those don't cost very much. Most Americans can afford those now. The deal with this is that it is probably only going to end up being a few treatments before you're fully cured so medical bills won't rack up. The other thing about this is that HIV is so widespread there will be plenty of donation money for those who can't afford it in the case that the cure turns out to be expensive.

  11. Small catch by Dunbal · · Score: 1

    The survival rate of a bone marrow transplant is around 40% even in the best hospitals in the world. That he had leukemia (probably chronic myeloid leukemia since that's the most common one that's transplanted) and by happy chance the transplant worked and also by happy chance this cured his HIV is great news for him. However this is not going to be used as standard therapy at all, you have better luck taking the drug regimen. What it might do however (hopefully) is continue to push to improve transplant protocols and thus success rates.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    1. Re:Small catch by tsotha · · Score: 1

      You might try reading the article.

    2. Re:Small catch by Dunbal · · Score: 1
      From TFA:

      The transplant treatment itself, given only to late-stage cancer patients, kills up to 30% of patients.

      Good for them if they have such a low mortality. I still don't see it being used regularly with that mortality rate. You are going to kill 1/3 of your patients?

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    3. Re:Small catch by rthille · · Score: 2

      No, the treatment they are working on is gene therapy, not the transplant that seems to have cured the man. They are related, but not the same.

      --
      Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
    4. Re:Small catch by ceoyoyo · · Score: 2

      "The survival rate of a bone marrow transplant is around 40% even in the best hospitals in the world."

      The survival rate for people dying of nasty forms of leukemia who get a bone marrow transplant from an unrelated donor when they're already on death's door might be about 40%, but the procedure itself isn't nearly that dangerous. Autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant has a mortality rate around 5% on average, and groups who specialize in it are getting quite a bit better than that. Presumably that's what you'd do to treat - extract a patient's HSCs, genetically modify them, immunoablate, then inject the HSCs to reconstitute the immune system in HIV resistant form.

  12. Majic Johnson? by Nidi62 · · Score: 2

    I thought South Park had definitively proven that Magic Johnson was able to cure his AIDS through all the money he's earned?

    --
    The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
  13. Re:The masses? (polio) by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    Polio is back, actually, thanks to anti-immunization Saudi policies.

    I'm not saying it's not a good idea, but it is unlikely to provide solutions for the majority of our planet's infected and at-risk populations.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  14. Re:No cure, ever. Not in America. by mark-t · · Score: 1

    Your conspiracy theorist is showing.

    There are numerous disorders and diseases that can be cured today which could not be even 200 years ago... admittedly, no treatment has 100% success though, nor can it.

    --
    File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
  15. Re:Just wait by xstonedogx · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You're completely forgetting the religious aspect. Only fornicators destined for hell are going to get AIDS. Clearly we need to bomb the free clinic.

    Also, it causes autism.

  16. Re:Science wins again. by xstonedogx · · Score: 2

    Jesus! It's not that I don't agree with you more or less, but why don't you and science get a room?

  17. Re:Cure for the masses by greentshirt · · Score: 1

    S/he didn't say anything about stopping the development of a cure. S/he simply pointed out that it was not likely something that "the masses" would immediately be able to afford.

  18. Re:No cure, ever. Not in America. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    FYI, I'm pretty sure if you post AC you can still mod, but if you mod then post, even as AC, the mods come undone.

  19. Re:Science wins again. by Sasayaki · · Score: 1

    Science has good taste in men, unfortunately... believe me. I've been barking up that tree for ages. ...

    I'll be in my bunk.

    --
    Check out my sci-fi book "Lacuna" at http://goo.gl/MVxX8
  20. Brain-dead. by westlake · · Score: 2

    Doctors do not cure. Not in America. They treat. They can't make a money off of you for as long as you live if they cure you. If they treat you, they can milk you until you die.

    Why does something so stupid always modded up to "Insightful?"

    The cure means that your patients have a real shot at rebuilding their lives and finances. It means that they will be a candidate for other medical services for perhaps the next half century or more.

    The cure opens the door to the understanding and treatment of other diseases.

    The cure is elusive. The cure may have side effects. The cure may dangerous. The surgical procedure that a weakened patient may not survive.

    The geek doesn't want medicine.

    What he wants is magic and miracle at a discount price.

    1. Re:Brain-dead. by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      The geek doesn't want medicine.

      Please don't confuse these nutball conspiracy theorists with geeks.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  21. But HIV just cured leukemia, which is better? by witherstaff · · Score: 1

    A recent story had news about gene therapy being used to cure 2 people of leukemia. The article described how they used an version of HIV to target the right blood cells. Now this article talks about curing HIV after having leukemia - it's a vicious circle!

    1. Re:But HIV just cured leukemia, which is better? by Nemyst · · Score: 1

      Just let them fight and bet on the winner.

  22. Re:Science wins again. by Sasayaki · · Score: 1

    AHEM. It's not a BASEMENT, it's a DUNGEON.

    --
    Check out my sci-fi book "Lacuna" at http://goo.gl/MVxX8
  23. Re:Just wait by hedwards · · Score: 1

    But ironically autism makes it harder to get HIV.

  24. Re:No cure, ever. Not in America. by Lokitoth · · Score: 2

    And all those Polio treatments.

  25. An Old Review of the Topic by Joe+Torres · · Score: 1

    A multiple research groups have targeted CCR5 using gene therapy before. An old (2007) review details the methods a number of groups have been trying including Carl June (you may remember his name from the leukemia story involving the HIV-vector). Building an HIV-Proof Immune System: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/317/5838/612.full

  26. Using Occam's Razor by idbeholda · · Score: 1

    The simplest, and most effective solution would be to infect leukemia patients with HIV and induce leukemia in patients with HIV. It makes perfect sense. What could possibly go wrong?

  27. Re:Science wins again. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I don't understand why a victory for science must be a defeat for religion? (Barring a title reading "It has been demonstrated that any god could not possibly exist, and the god theory has absolutely broken down.")

    I mean, the only people I know of that say HIV is only put upon the unjust and they deserve what they get are the nutters - not your normal, everyday person. And the vast majority of people are not atheists - they believe in some form of God or life force. (Yes, vast, even the higher numbers for % of atheists in countries are around 30%)

    So why would a cure for HIV change the score to +1 Science, -1 Religion? I would think it would be +1 Humanity - and I'm fairly certain that we *all* fall into that group, regardless of our beliefs.

  28. Using HIV to cure leukemia by Arancaytar · · Score: 1

    And leukemia to cure HIV.

    (Yeah, that's actually completely wrong because the HIV was cured as a side-effect of the treatment against leukemia. Still, nicely circular.)

  29. Re:Cure for the masses by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 1

    Doesn't this just entail keeping your genes on?

    --
    -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
  30. Re:Science wins again. by rthille · · Score: 1

    The vast majority of humans _are_ atheists (see my .sig), and as far as I'm concerned, if you're over 18 and you believe in a god, you _are_ a nutter.

    --
    Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
  31. So... by Viceice · · Score: 1

    http://science.slashdot.org/story/11/08/11/1458205/Cancer-Cured-By-HIV

    So the cure for leukaemia is HIV, and the cure for HIV is leukaemia?

    --
    Sometimes I wish I was a plumber, then I'd know how to deal with other people's shit.
    1. Re:So... by Green+Monkey · · Score: 1

      Well, it worked for Mr. Burns.

      --

      Green Monkey

  32. Re:Science wins again. by xstonedogx · · Score: 1

    But if I move into the basement mom won't make me pancakes anymore.

  33. The first sexual revolution? by mevets · · Score: 1

    The 60s had nothing on the 20s; and the last decade looks uptight and repressive compared to the 50s.
    As counter to modern culture as it may seem, it was well understood how much fun sex was a very long time ago.

    In terms of monetizing sex, well that is quite the revolution.....

  34. Don't forget the other great thing about a cure by NotSoHeavyD3 · · Score: 1

    If you have a cure then more than a few people would continue doing whatever it was that made them sick in the first place. You've got repeat customers right in the waiting. (I mean why avoid eating fatty foods like bacon if I can just take a pill anytime I get sick.)

    --
    Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
  35. Re:Just wait by kurzweilfreak · · Score: 1

    GOD GOD GOD GOD GOD. Look, I spelled it, with the O and all that shit. And no lightning strike. Please get the fuck over it.

    --

    kurzweil_freak

    5th Kyu Genbukan Ninpo/KJJR student

    Be the darkness that allows the light to shine.

  36. Obligitory Bill Hicks quote by Demonoid-Penguin · · Score: 1

    I dunno how much AIDS scares y’all, but I got a theory: the day they come out with a cure for AIDS, a guaranteed one-shot cure, on that day there’s gonna be fucking in the streets, man.

    1. Re:Obligitory Bill Hicks quote by backslashdot · · Score: 2

      Umm, on the incurable front there's still Hepatitis C, HPV (thanks to Michele Bachmann), and good ol' Herpes to worry about.

    2. Re:Obligitory Bill Hicks quote by BJ_Covert_Action · · Score: 1

      Not trying to defend her, but what's Bachmann got to do with HPV? Did I completely miss something?

      --
      Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
    3. Re:Obligitory Bill Hicks quote by BJ_Covert_Action · · Score: 1

      Nevermind, figured it out.

      --
      Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
  37. Re:I have another cure. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Ha! Fool! I never have mod points!

  38. Re:Cure for the masses by Demonoid-Penguin · · Score: 1

    Nobody ever expected computers to be affordable to the masses either.

    And they're not affordable "to" the masses either. When the majority (masses) can afford computers you will still be a dick.

  39. Re:Cure for the masses by Demonoid-Penguin · · Score: 1

    Most Americans can afford those now.

    I get the point - do you?

  40. Re:Science wins again. by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

    The God of the Gaps argument.

    God used to do everything. God made the sun rise. God made the rain fall. God made the earthquakes come, and storms, and famine and plenty. God send health and disease. God made life. God made everything.

    Then science came along. Science poked around, and determined that there was no God making the sun rise - mere an illusion created by a rotating planet. Science figured out the water cycle, and plate tectonics, and ecology. Science discovered that disease is caused by microorganisms, and found ways to fight them. Then science worked out how the diversity of life came about, all without any need for God.

    Science is getting closer to working out how life could have originated and how the universe began, and without need of God. Every time science solves another great mystery, that is one less thing to attribute to God. As science fills in more and more gaps in knowledge, religion has less territory to occupy.

  41. Re:A cure already exists: by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Or are a victim of a sexual assault. Or suffer a needlestick injury as a doctor treating someone with HIV (or have incidental blood-blood contact through say broken skin). Or if your partner of 10 years cheats on you. Or if the condom fails.

  42. Re:Just wait by Ginger+Unicorn · · Score: 2

    All I said was "that piece of halibut was good enough for jehovah"

    --
    (1.21 gigawatts) / (88 miles per hour) = 30 757 874 newtons
  43. Coming soon by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    Big Pharma is just waiting until their patents on modified T cells are approved (which it will be). Bonus: they'll sue any marrow donor with this mutation for infringement.

  44. Re:Science wins again. by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

    It's a COMMAND CENTER!

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  45. Re:Science wins again. by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

    That's how religious fundies see it anyways. To them, once science can explain something it means God didn't do it, which is pretty funny considering they consider themselves the most hardcore believers, yet their belief seems to be the most fragile.

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  46. Re:Just wait by KingAlanI · · Score: 1

    I assume you mean that the social awkwardness makes it harder to get laid. I actually once told a doctor that that was my "birth control plan". I suppose anti-STD plan too. (and if I do get lucky, condoms)

    --
    I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
  47. Re:Just wait by sgt+scrub · · Score: 1

    Don't worry. The procedure requires them to apply the gene therapy to stem cells before the transfusion. That will keep it illegal in the U.S. for at least 50 years.

    umbilical cord blood is a life!

    --
    Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
  48. Re:I have another cure. by instagib · · Score: 1

    Heh, you just illustrated how major religions were invented:

    1. I can't get laid, and I hate others getting all the fun.
    2. Invent and spread abstinence doctrine based on fear of the unkown.
    3. ???
    4. Profit!!!

  49. Natural Selection - Who would have thought it? by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

    This is basically just playing around with the mechanisms of natural selection. Left unchecked, HIV would ransack the population of humans until the only ones that lived long enough to reproduce were the ones carrying this "defective" coreceptor.

    Eventually, all humans would have the coreceptor mutation and HIV would fall by the wayside.

    Now they're just talking about giving the faulty coreceptor to everyone, or so it seems.

  50. Re:No cure, ever. Not in America. by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

    So when's the last time you saw someone with polio or smallpox?

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  51. Re:I have another cure. by Capt.DrumkenBum · · Score: 1

    Look at the Catholic church. Your 4 step plan obviously works very well.
    Based on this theory, step 4 must be:
    4. Diddle alter boys.

    --
    If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
  52. Re:No cure, ever. Not in America. by mark-t · · Score: 1
    Mp> Well, numerous infection-related diseases have been cured since the discovery of antibiotics, for example. Many diseases have been all but wiped off the face of the earth due to immunization (some have even been totally eradicated). Most skin cancers can be cured fairly readily as well, as long as they are caught early enough. Heck, even Tylenol is considered a perfectly reasonable cure for a headache.

    Treatments for such curable conditions are readily available in North America, so the notion that there is some widespread conspiracy to generally withhold any curative treatments from the public carries little weight, and is only fueled by the imaginations of people who selectively focus only on any information they can find which supports their own position, and who have an almost pathological aversion to ever applying Occam's Razor.

    --
    File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'