Two More HIV Patients Now Virus-Free Thanks To Bone Marrow Transplant

In other news by Tr3vin · 2012-07-27 07:47 · Score: 4, Funny

In other news, a representative from Chick-Fil-A has stated that the company does not support bone marrow transplants.

Re:In other news by wisnoskij · 2012-07-27 08:04 · Score: 2

And there is probably about the same percentage risk if not lower for a single unprotected act.
Assuming the one pattern has aids, and it is unprotected sex:
Vaginal Male >0.5%
Vaginal female >1%
Anal receptive >1.5%
Anal (top M/F) >1%
Male Oral (giving) >0.0001%
Everything Else = 0
These are supposed to be best estimates by experts, but of course we could never hold studies. And if you want rough chances with a condom, I think you just times the result by 1%.

--
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
Re:In other news by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-27 08:19 · Score: 1

*deadly in the same sense as walking through Camden - unless you carry A GAT :-P
Re:In other news by xmousex · 2012-07-27 08:25 · Score: 2

Everything Else = 0
this
right here
is hilarious
and definitely wrong
Re:In other news by M1FCJ · 2012-07-27 08:54 · Score: 1

Of course since US has eradicated the drug users by locking up all of them, infection by needle sharing is not worth mentioning... I guess, at least that's what these stats mean?
Re:In other news by wisnoskij · 2012-07-27 08:54 · Score: 1

Just copied from the site, I guess it is just relatively 0%. The medical community does not seem to warn people away from kissing without protection (I do not even think there is kiss protection), but kissing does have a risk involved as well as hand holding.

--
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
Re:In other news by harley78 · 2012-07-27 13:32 · Score: 1

Pretty sure GP was talking about IV drug use.....you know, where you share a needle and directly inject infected blood into yourself...
Re:In other news by Daniel+Dvorkin · 2012-07-27 19:49 · Score: 2

Maybe you missed the part where he clearly stated he was talking about unprotected sex? I suppose there are people who see sticking needles in themselves as a sexual act, but I'm willing to go out on a limb and say they're such a tiny minority that their effect on the numbers is close enough to zero as makes no difference.

--
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.

100% clean bone marrow here ladies by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-27 07:48 · Score: 2, Funny

I do you a big favor, and later you do me some favors, deal?

Immunosupressants? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-27 07:53 · Score: 5, Insightful

Don't they have to take stuff to immunosuppress for the rest of their life with the bone marrow transplant? Trade one immunodeficiency for another?

Re:Immunosupressants? by slazzy · 2012-07-27 07:57 · Score: 3, Informative

Yes, you do have to take immunosuppressant drugs for bone marrow transplant will reject it. Probably also steroids such as Prednisone as well.

--
Website Just Down For Me? Find out
Re:Immunosupressants? by brainzach · 2012-07-27 08:06 · Score: 5, Informative

You only have to take immunosuppressants for a year or two with a bone marrow transplant. The bone marrow will learn to recognize your body after a while.
The real danger is there is about 15 to 50% dying from the treatment itself. It is probably better to use current HIV treatments and only use the bone marrow transplant as a last resort, similar to what they do for cancer.
Re:Immunosupressants? by MozeeToby · 2012-07-27 08:25 · Score: 5, Informative

That all depends on a host of factors. If the transplant came from a brother or sister (or from yourself, which is becoming more and more common these days) the rate of rejection is very low (still not 0, but close to it). If it's coming from a stranger rejection is more likely, though that again depends on how good the match is and how the new immune system reacts. There are even cases where doctors will chose a 'less good' match for patients with persistent cancer because it increases the chances of the new immune helping to finish off the cancer. At least, that's what they told me when I was in to donate.
Incidentally, it's not the host's body that rejects the bone marrow, it's generally the other way around. The new bone marrow rejects the host, called graft vs host disease.
Re:Immunosupressants? by MozeeToby · 2012-07-27 08:30 · Score: 3, Informative

I was told the death rate is ~10% from the radiation to kill the patient's current bone marrow, ~5% due to graft vs host disease, and the rest of the fatality rate is due to the cancer not really being gone when they do the transplant. So the actual fatality rates would be much closer to the 15%, less still if you are doing it to otherwise healthy patients, and if you have a perfect match (from a sibling generally) the graft vs host disease rate will go to near zero. I bet you could push it down to 5%, still probably not worth it for most people... but I could imagine women who want to have kids taking the risk for one thing (though a bone marrow transplant might make getting pregnant risky in and of itself, just using it as an example).
Re:Immunosupressants? by brainzach · 2012-07-27 09:15 · Score: 2

The mortality rates have a lot to do with the health of the patient and how well of a match they can get. Things get tricky because having graft vs hosts disease helps cure the cancer part because it will attack cancer cells before the rest of the body.
The challenge is finding someone who is an exact match and have the genetics that is resistant to HIV. It might work for those lucky few, but people already have challenges finding a match without the HIV criteria.
Re:Immunosupressants? by EvanED · 2012-07-27 09:36 · Score: 1

[This is a little bit in reply to your child post as well that lists additional statistics]
The real danger is there is about 15 to 50% dying from the treatment itself.
Jesus, I didn't realize that the transplant was so risky. I'd have guessed that the "didn't really get the cancer" part would get a lot of people, but the other problems I'd have not expected. Even MozeeToby's idealistic 5% is surprisingly high to me.
It's sometimes depressing how little we know about how the body works and how little we can do to fix it despite the medical advances of the last 150 years.
Re:Immunosupressants? by MozeeToby · 2012-07-27 10:15 · Score: 1

Yeah, I was surprised when I heard it to but the more you think about it the more it makes sense. A person's bone marrow is firmly rooted inside their bones, pretty much the only way to kill it without killing the person immediately, is to attack it with something that kills fast dividing cells preferentially. That can be done with extremely high doses of some chemotherapy drugs (read as 'poison') or, more commonly, through radiation. It's a very, very thin line between killing someone's bone marrow and killing them all together. In fact, if the transplant fails (or god forbid, the donor backs out at the last second) you've basically signed the patients death sentence, it's unlikely you'll be able to keep the patient's blood counts high for any length of time.
Re:Immunosupressants? by alantus · 2012-07-27 11:39 · Score: 2

The challenge is finding someone who is an exact match and have the genetics that is resistant to HIV. It might work for those lucky few, but people already have challenges finding a match without the HIV criteria.
FTFA: "The findings may not apply to all patients. Both men were a little unusual in that they had a genetic mutation that can make immune cells resistant to infection by HIV. Their new immune cells, however, which came from the donors, are fully susceptible to the virus."
Re:Immunosupressants? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-27 12:29 · Score: 1

It's been a few years since I followed up on BMTs, but even with Brother and Sisters, the rate of rejection is higher than you claim. In 2005, the mortality rate at 5 years was (iirc) around 50%.
The sad fact is BMT are basically an attempt to jump start the immune system. First they destroy it, then they plant the new stuff, and finally, they hope it catches.
Yes, you can die from a BMT. (Or you can suffer grade 4 Mucositis which is also fun).
You can die from a (very) simple infection when the bone marrow tries to restart (and it doesn't always, even if it's from your sister).
Re:Immunosupressants? by slew · 2012-07-27 13:06 · Score: 2

That all depends on a host of factors. If the transplant came from a brother or sister (or from yourself, which is becoming more and more common these days) the rate of rejection is very low (still not 0, but close to it). If it's coming from a stranger rejection is more likely, though that again depends on how good the match is and how the new immune system reacts. There are even cases where doctors will chose a 'less good' match for patients with persistent cancer because it increases the chances of the new immune helping to finish off the cancer. At least, that's what they told me when I was in to donate.
Incidentally, it's not the host's body that rejects the bone marrow, it's generally the other way around. The new bone marrow rejects the host, called graft vs host disease.
I don't know about this case, but in standard BMT, a full histocompatible match with siblings isn't that likely (of course this doesn't fully correlate to the rate of rejection).
AFAIK, Since one set of HLA (human leukocyte antigen) genes comes from your mother and one set comes from your father, there is roughly only a 1 in 4 chance that your brother or sister inherited the same two sets of HLA genes that you have.
Of course you can attempt to use a partial match (there are 4 genes per set so the odds aren't that great) or even as low as a haplomatch (1/2 match), which by definition you have a 100% chance of that with your parent (you got one of those chromosomes, right), but still only 50% chance with a brother or sister (they might have gotten the other one).
Apparently the standard treatment for partially matched donors is to deplete the donor graft of T lymphocite cells help avoid graft vs host disease. Sometimes they additionally prescribe more nasty radiation and chemotherapy type treatments to reduce the chance of rejection. But perhaps these things wouldn't be done for somebody with AIDS because they would tend to increase the risks of infection.
Re:Immunosupressants? by CrimsonAvenger · 2012-07-27 17:59 · Score: 1

You only have to take immunosuppressants for a year or two with a bone marrow transplant. The bone marrow will learn to recognize your body after a while.
I am going to be having a bone marrow transplant to fix my cancer in the not terribly distant future, and my doctor has told me that *ideally* I will have to take strong immunosuppressants for a year or two, plus steroids for basically the rest of my life.
However, there is a non-zero chance that I will be taking some fairly strong immunosuppressants for the rest of my life.
Of course, in the latter case, I don't expect "the rest of my life" to be all that long....

--

"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Re:Immunosupressants? by Tesen · 2012-07-28 00:38 · Score: 1

2 years for my mother, the anti-rejection drugs, the previous cancer treatments and the act of nuking her immune system for the BMT just weakened her way to much. She ended up in rejection and then died of Pneumonia because even the industrial strength antibiotics they gave her could not help.
Re:Immunosupressants? by ceoyoyo · 2012-07-28 03:21 · Score: 1

The study I'm currently working on is running about a 2-5% mortality rate from the immunoablation and transplant. It is an autologous transplant though, so there's no risk of rejection.
Still, bone marrow is hard to come by, it is more dangerous if you're using a donor, and HIV infections can be very well controlled.
Re:Immunosupressants? by EvanED · 2012-07-30 02:45 · Score: 1

(It's been a bit since I saw your response.)
After you explained it it does make sense... I'm just not sure I knew that they killed off the recipient's marrow before transplant. Seems like one of those things I might have known at one time and then forgot, but my brain could just be playing tricks.
Still, I'm still a bit astonished that the mortality rate is that high. Guess that just means there's lots of room for improvement...

Well, yes and no. by Frosty+Piss · 2012-07-27 07:53 · Score: 3, Informative

There is not test or proof that they are 100% virus free. The test can only show that there is a high STATISTICAL probability that they MIGHT be virus free.

--
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.

Re:Well, yes and no. by Antipater · 2012-07-27 07:57 · Score: 3, Informative

That is currently true. However, an up-and-coming competitor for the AIDS-cure crown is a therapy that flushes latent HIV out of dormancy, to be monitored or killed. So it soon might be possible.

--
Everything is better with chainsaws.
Re:Well, yes and no. by sjames · 2012-07-27 08:00 · Score: 2

That is true of any test though. No test is 100% accurate and no test if performed correctly 100% of the time.
Re:Well, yes and no. by wisnoskij · 2012-07-27 08:08 · Score: 2

Every test is like that, not medical test (or otherwise) can tell you more then a statistical chance one way or the other.
But if you take the test multiple times you get a guarantee, for all intents and purposes.

--
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
Re:Well, yes and no. by Pulzar · 2012-07-27 08:26 · Score: 1

high STATISTICAL probability that they MIGHT be
Errr.. what, now? "Might be" is already an indication of probability, although a very vague one. It doesn't make sense to say that something has a "90% of maybe" chance of being right.
In other words, what you wanted to say is that the test can show that there is a high probability of being virus free, but it can't prove it.

--
Never underestimate the bandwidth of a 747 filled with CD-ROMs.
Re:Well, yes and no. by Vellmont · 2012-07-27 09:05 · Score: 1

But that's true of anyone. You or me included.
You're really just splitting hairs at this point. If you don't have any symptoms, and can't pass on the virus, and aren't receiving active treatment for the disease (virus cocktail)... in what sense could you be said to have HIV?

--
AccountKiller
Re:Well, yes and no. by DM9290 · 2012-07-27 09:31 · Score: 1

There's this other even better method I heard of: don't catch it in the first place. It's really easy and inexpensive compared to the other 2 major treatments. Seriously, you can only do things to lower your odds of catching a cold or the flu but for HIV, it's 100% human caused and human spread via direct actions that if people stopped taking them, it would go away in 1 generation. But whatever, stupid, reckless, careless people will find some way to get themselves killed, HIV or otherwise.
if people stopped having sex it really would wipe out AIDS in 1 generation. it would also wipe out humankind, but who's counting.

--
No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.
Re:Well, yes and no. by Rhacman · 2012-07-27 09:56 · Score: 2

Odds are, either you or someone you care about will make a mistake that will come to harm you or them at some point in your or their life. Perhaps they knew better, perhaps they didn't, they may not have even had a choice but are you content to write them off as simply suffering the consequences of their actions? I don't know the answer to that, perhaps you would be content but many of us would like to help those who are suffering, irrespective of the cause.

--
Account -> Discussions -> Disable Sigs
Re:Well, yes and no. by slashmydots · 2012-07-27 10:19 · Score: 1

There's a typo there. You meant to say with more than 1 person, as 1 person would be impossible.
Re:Well, yes and no. by ultranova · 2012-07-27 10:49 · Score: 2

Seriously, you can only do things to lower your odds of catching a cold or the flu but for HIV, it's 100% human caused and human spread via direct actions that if people stopped taking them, it would go away in 1 generation. But whatever, stupid, reckless, careless people will find some way to get themselves killed, HIV or otherwise.

Yeah, all the stupid babies who don't have the good sense to test their mother for the infection before being born deserve their AIDS. And rape victims clearly had it coming too. Not to mention fools who need a blood transfusion for any reason.
With your capacity for reason and empathy you'd make a great catholic bishop.

--
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Re:Well, yes and no. by mattack2 · 2012-07-27 11:00 · Score: 1

it would also wipe out humankind, but who's counting.
Not really. You could have all new humans be IVF. If they do the one sperm & one egg thing you see in videos, there's no HIV to spread, right??
(Obviously I'm not suggesting that for real.)
Re:Well, yes and no. by TheSeatOfMyPants · 2012-07-27 12:53 · Score: 2

Many people get it from a cheating partner/spouse, so everyone would need to become celibate—HIV would be conquered in 1 generation, but humanity wouldn't be around to celebrate it.

--
Now mostly at Usenet:comp.misc & SoylentNews.org (it's made of people!)
Re:Well, yes and no. by omfgnosis · 2012-07-27 13:45 · Score: 1

There's this other even better method I heard of: don't catch it in the first place.
You're right! Children born with HIV (or infected through breastfeeding) are so stupid, reckless and careless! They need to fire up their time machines and kill their parents before conception. Patients receiving improperly screened blood transfusions are so stupid, reckless and careless! They should instead refuse treatment and just hurry up and die, rather than risk unwitting infection. Victims of rape by others who are infected are so stupid, reckless and careless! They should just... not get raped... somehow. Newlyweds, having been tested and one of whom having received a false negative, are so stupid, reckless and careless! They should magically know the test was incorrect and choose not to procreate.
Incidentally, while you're moralizing about the poor life choices of caricatured mythical drug-addict buttfuckers (or whatever other poorly conceived notion of the stupidity, recklessness and carelessness of people infected with HIV), you might want to consider the infection risks before you dig up the corpses (without help, lest you lose your boner) of Ayn Rand and Ronald Reagan for that threesome you've always wanted.
Do you realize how stupid, reckless and careless you sound?

Statistical probablity? by 140Mandak262Jamuna · 2012-07-27 07:59 · Score: 5, Funny

There is not test or proof that they are 100% virus free. The test can only show that there is a high STATISTICAL probability that they MIGHT be virus free.

It reminds of the story about three professors walking down a country lane in Scotland. They see a black cow. The astrophysicist immediately declares, "All the cows in Scotland are black!". The professor of statistics interjects, "You are generalizing too much. All you can say is, the statistical probability of finding a black cow in Scotland is above zero. That is all."

The professor of mathematics looks at them and says, "That is also a generalization, my friend. All we can say now is, this side of that cow is black".

--
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact

Re:Statistical probablity? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-27 08:32 · Score: 5, Funny

And then a farmer walks over to them and points out that it's a sheep.
Re:Statistical probablity? by lazarith · 2012-07-27 14:00 · Score: 1

And then the astrophysicist looks at them and says, "That cow only has one side. It is part of a hologram that we are all a part of."
And then the philosopher looks at them and says, "That cow doesn't necessarily exist. Neither do you. Cogito ergo sum."
Re:Statistical probablity? by Tesen · 2012-07-28 00:42 · Score: 1

Thank you, sir! That just made me chuckle :)

Genetic Lottery Winner? by rmdingler · 2012-07-27 08:00 · Score: 4, Interesting

Just how prevalent is this genetic mutation? IANAD, but assuming there must also be a very close match as with other transplants, will this help a few or many?

--
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

Ernest Hemingway

Re:Genetic Lottery Winner? by realityimpaired · 2012-07-27 08:13 · Score: 4, Informative

About 1% in northern Europeans, and it's not known to occur in other racial groups... they happened to be doing a story on the Berlin patient on CBC a few days ago, and I was listening to it.
http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/ID/2260029968/
And as you point out, whether a person is a good match for a bone marrow transplant is a big question... it's significantly harder to find a match for a bone marrow transplant. The video goes into detail on it.
Re:Genetic Lottery Winner? by MozeeToby · 2012-07-27 08:35 · Score: 1

I read that the donors for these two men do not have the gene that gives resistance; that their possible cure is a result of them staying on their anti-retroviral meds throughout the transplant process, so that the virus never got the chance to establish itself in the new immune system. Actually quite a bit more interesting than the Berlin patient given how hard it is to find a matching bone marrow donor, let alone one that also has the HIV resistance gene. Actually, this is a big boost for just how effective those drugs are at blocking new infections. Think about it, this isn't a finger prick, microscopic amount of HIV infected blood, their bodies were flooded with the virus and the new immune system still didn't get infected thanks to the drugs. That's pretty impressive if you ask me.
Re:Genetic Lottery Winner? by rmdingler · 2012-07-27 11:34 · Score: 1

Live long enough and technology will allow you to prosper.

--
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
Re:Genetic Lottery Winner? by donscarletti · 2012-07-27 21:21 · Score: 1

Live long enough and technology will allow you to prosper.
Of course, not having AIDS helps with that.

--
When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
Re:Genetic Lottery Winner? by rmdingler · 2012-07-28 03:36 · Score: 1

Happenstance is an underrated genetic selection device.

--
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway

Ah, yes. by tgd · 2012-07-27 08:09 · Score: 5, Funny

Just goes to show, when you have a virus you can't get rid of, reboot and re-install.

Isn't it ironic by Stickerboy · 2012-07-27 08:17 · Score: 1

The first humans cured of the HIV virus, and they get the reward of taking immunosuppressive medications, possibly for the rest of their life. This is the medical equivalent of napalming the village in order to save it...

--
Light a fire for a man and he'll be warm for a day. Light a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

Re:Isn't it ironic by reub2000 · 2012-07-27 08:39 · Score: 2

Sounds more like starting smaller fires in order to control a much larger fire.
Re:Isn't it ironic by Vellmont · 2012-07-27 09:08 · Score: 1

These people had leukemia. The bone marrow transplant was to cure the leukemia. Getting bone marrow that's immune to HIV was just a bonus.

--
AccountKiller
Re:Isn't it ironic by DM9290 · 2012-07-27 09:34 · Score: 1

The first humans cured of the HIV virus, and they get the reward of taking immunosuppressive medications, possibly for the rest of their life. This is the medical equivalent of napalming the village in order to save it...
it worked in Vietnam!

--
No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.

Re:Haha lmao by Jeng · 2012-07-27 08:39 · Score: 1, Offtopic

Is that random collection of words suppose to be some sort of derogatory remark?

If you are going to insult someone at least do it in a way that doesn't make you appear to be a blithering idiot.

--
Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.

Old News? by caknuckle · 2012-07-27 08:40 · Score: 1

Didn't they already do this with Magic Johnson for exactly $200,000??

Re:How much does it cost? Who's paying for it? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-27 08:48 · Score: 2, Insightful

That is not a very Christian way to look at things.

Re:How much does it cost? Who's paying for it? by MightyMartian · 2012-07-27 08:48 · Score: 1

And as for those unlucky enough to get it through a blood transfusion, they can rot too, right?

--
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.

No CFA is CLOSED on Sunday by RobertLTux · 2012-07-27 08:57 · Score: 1

You can't even call the Corporate Office and get a person on Sunday. But anyway i think August 1 will be "interesting" for CFA.

--
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge

Re:No CFA is CLOSED on Sunday by lister+king+of+smeg · 2012-07-27 09:18 · Score: 1

So? You may not agree with their beliefs but you have to respect them for standing by them. they put their money where their mouth is unlike a lot of others.

--
---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
Re:No CFA is CLOSED on Sunday by kurzweilfreak · 2012-07-27 13:16 · Score: 2

You don't have to respect someone for standing by their beliefs when their beliefs are fucking stupid. Do you respect the KKK for standing by their beliefs?

--
kurzweil_freak
5th Kyu Genbukan Ninpo/KJJR student
Be the darkness that allows the light to shine.

Re:Political Correctness by networkBoy · 2012-07-27 09:00 · Score: 1

ha ha ha ha ha
you win one internet sir. ./thread

--
whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump

Re:Haha lmao by 19thNervousBreakdown · 2012-07-27 09:01 · Score: 1

It says lmao, not homo. Unless there's some other homophobic reference in the vaguely hateful nonsense, I think you're just being over-sensitive.

--
<xml><I><am><so><damn>Web 2.0</damn></so></am></I></xml>

Re:Political Correctness by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-27 09:06 · Score: 1

I can already get fried chicken at Church's. Pretty tasty stuff, although I do feel like I stick out like a sore thumb because of the color of my skin. I wonder if homosexuals that enjoy Chik-Fil-A's food feel something similar while there, surrounded by all the squares.

Re:Political Correctness by Applekid · 2012-07-27 09:08 · Score: 1

I don't eat anything fried so I can't vouch for it, but give this recipe a spin.

--
More Twoson than Cupertino

Re:HIV = AIDS by Jeng · 2012-07-27 09:14 · Score: 1

No it's not heresy it is just completely wrong.

Have you ever taken a biology class?

--
Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.

Become a donor by QuantumRiff · 2012-07-27 09:17 · Score: 5, Informative

Lots of people don't realize anyone can be a bone marrow donor.. Be the Match runs a large registry. I clicked a few buttons on the website, and 2 weeks later, had a cheekswab in the mail. Probably simpler than registering to be a donor on my Drivers License, because I didn't have to wait at the DMV :)

This is somewhat off-topic, since it doesn't have to do with the treatment, or treatment for aids, but Bone Marrow transplants are needed for lots of cancers too.

--

What are we going to do tonight Brain?

Re:Become a donor by steveb3210 · 2012-07-27 09:34 · Score: 1

Lots of people don't realize anyone can be a bone marrow donor..
Apparently not me (They don't allow gay people to donate - even if I am HIV-)
Re:Become a donor by Jeng · 2012-07-27 09:34 · Score: 1

Thank you for posting that, I had no idea it was that easy to become a blood marrow donor.

--
Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
Re:Become a donor by QuantumRiff · 2012-07-27 12:55 · Score: 1

They send you a ton of info along with the cheek swabs about how donation works. They also say its doesn't match you, it just gets you "close" and if you appear to be compatible, they will ask you to come to a medical center for more thorough tests.

--

What are we going to do tonight Brain?
Re:Become a donor by GodfatherofSoul · 2012-07-27 13:50 · Score: 2

I really don't get why there's such a pouty attitude from gay Americans about this. Guess what, you're in a high-risk, high-rate group with about 21% infectiona and half don't even KNOW they're infected. The healthcare community isn't afraid of passing The Gay through blood transfusions. I'm African American, if I were gay the infection rate for my demo would be around 40%!

--
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
Re:Become a donor by adamofgreyskull · 2012-07-27 14:16 · Score: 1

Not quite anyone. You cannot be a bone marrow donor or even a blood donor in some countries, like New Zealand, if you lived in the UK during the outbreak of BSE/CJD.
Re:Become a donor by Keen+Anthony · 2012-07-27 18:41 · Score: 1

Are you quite sure it's anyone, aside of course for precluded groups. I thought that the original Berlin Patient got a transplant from someone who seemed to have a kind of genetic immunity to HIV?
Re:Become a donor by cybernanga · 2012-07-27 22:17 · Score: 1

Many countries also won't take blood if you have lived in (or been in relationship with someone from) Sub-Saharan Africa

--
www.Buy-Proxy.com - A "buyer-driven" global marketplace.

Re:HIV = AIDS by fredgiblet · 2012-07-27 09:42 · Score: 1

Of course not, those classes were created by the "scientists" who invented HIV in the first place. Don't you know that?

Re:No way by fredgiblet · 2012-07-27 09:43 · Score: 1

Interestingly I remember reading an article way back showign that there was a test performed in Africa which showed that circumcision dramatically reduced the rates of HIV infection.

Re:Political Correctness by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-27 09:44 · Score: 2, Insightful

I guess what you're saying is that unless the corporation agrees with YOUR point of view, they shouldn't be involved with politics.

I didn't hear anyone screaming about the following corporations donating money to pro same sex marriage causes and legislation:

Amazon
Microsoft
Starbucks
Nike
General Mills
Nabisco
Kraft

and many, many more...

Thats it. I am selling my bone marrow. by forextor · 2012-07-27 09:56 · Score: 1

What kind of bone marrow they are looking at, does this mean I kind sell my bone marrow to the highest bidder? Or does it need a specific kind of bone marrow or patient?

Re:Thats it. I am selling my bone marrow. by mattack2 · 2012-07-27 11:10 · Score: 1

At least if you are in the U.S., no, unfortunately you cannot sell your bone marrow (or tons of other body parts/fluids, though of course not all -- e.g. sperm donors).
http://rockcenter.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/06/13/12190616-woman-challenges-bone-marrow-donation-law-in-effort-to-save-daughters-lives

Re:Political Correctness by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-27 10:02 · Score: 1

I don't think Chick-Fil-A is a lobbying corporation. All they did was say they don't support it, not that they won't serve gays, or push for "no gay marriage" (as far as I can tell). I know it's a matter of principle and morals and what have you, but I think the fact they aren't lobbying for anything anti-gay (again, as far as I know) I think it kind of equals out on the "support, don't support" spectrum.

Berlin patient by tsotha · 2012-07-27 10:32 · Score: 1

These two new cases are reminiscent of the so-called 'Berlin patient,' the only person known to have been cured of infection from the human immunodeficiency virus.

There is some evidence to suggest "Berlin Patient" Timothy Ray Brown may not actually be cured of HIV. They just don't know for sure.

Re:Political Correctness by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-27 10:37 · Score: 1

I believe in voting with your dollars, and do not believe that a business should getting involved in politics.

What about when businesses lobbied against SOPA/PIPA/ACTA/etc.? Should they have not been involved? They dealt some heavy blows, more so than what those little online petitions everybody signed did.

Re:Haha lmao by X0563511 · 2012-07-27 12:17 · Score: 1

I might be reading it wrong, but I took "I bet you're cheeks are absolute garbage" to be referring to anal sex. Put that in context with the trolling, and there's the homosexuality link.

--
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...

You forgot to sign your post . . . by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-27 12:55 · Score: 1

"Sincerely, Repressed Gay"

Re:Political Correctness by kurzweilfreak · 2012-07-27 13:20 · Score: 2

Chick-Fil-A donates lots of money to anti-gay groups that do lobby for no-gay marriage. That's definitely supporting a anti-gay activity in my book.

--

kurzweil_freak

5th Kyu Genbukan Ninpo/KJJR student

Be the darkness that allows the light to shine.

Re:Political Correctness by kurzweilfreak · 2012-07-27 13:21 · Score: 2

Different situation when all of those acts had the potential to directly affect the way those businesses conducted their business.

--

kurzweil_freak

5th Kyu Genbukan Ninpo/KJJR student

Be the darkness that allows the light to shine.

Re:Political Correctness by TheGoodNamesWereGone · 2012-07-27 13:23 · Score: 1

GET IT OUT OF MY FACE. Go fuck whoever you like. Just get it out of my face. I have as much right not to be offended as you do to offend.

Re:Political Correctness by adamofgreyskull · 2012-07-27 13:50 · Score: 1

You have no such right.

Re:You are the DEFINITION of "Politically Correct" by TheGoodNamesWereGone · 2012-07-27 13:53 · Score: 1

I have a vote, you have a vote.

Re:TheGoodNamesWereGone (1844118) by TheGoodNamesWereGone · 2012-07-27 13:54 · Score: 1

And you are still anonymous

Re:TheGoodNamesWereGone (1844118) by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-27 14:00 · Score: 1

Anonymous Coward versus (repressed or unrepressed) Butt Boy. I know which one I'd rather be.

Re:Political Correctness by TheGoodNamesWereGone · 2012-07-27 14:14 · Score: 1

I have a vote. Look, I'm fifty years old. I'll be gone in twenty years, and the rest of the world can stew in its own juice. Rejoice! You'll win by attrition! Oh, and good luck.

Re:Political Correctness by Keen+Anthony · 2012-07-27 17:45 · Score: 1

No one cares whether you accept it. The only thing you're asked to do is stand aside and refrain from attacking or mocking gay couples that pass you on a public street. Your one vote doesn't matter because there is no vote count to be taken, nor should there be. You may not be talking about gassing homosexuals, but there are people on the Right that are. Shall I pull up the video of the woman advocating for putting all homosexuals within an electrified fence so that they naturally die off? You obviously don't associate with those types -- but just maybe you do and you don't realize it because they know that their fantastic right to be free from offense is greatly countered by the realities of life. What's your measure for being "in your face" anyway? Is it seeing a gay couple making out; all but having sex right there in front of you? I'm straight, and I've seen plenty of heterosexual couples making out in public places. I think it's tacky, and I'd prefer not to see it. Amazingly, I find that I can simply look away. I don't have to make any other changes to my regimen, nor do I have to avoid public places I enjoy. Or do you think it's "in your face" when two gays kiss casually or hold hands, or when an advertisement features an otherwise "normal" looking happy family that could be your family?

Really, as a practical matter, the only "in your face" gaydom you're exposed to is casual indications that a person is gay (a button, a pin, a light public display of affection with a member of the same sex) or gay rights advocacy. The first you'll have to just deal with. The latter will go away once gays are treated with full equality. Notice how the blacks and the hispanics aren't demanding the right to vote and intermarry? If you're having to constantly shield yourself from rainbow-infused wild acts of hedonistic gaydom, I suggest you leave that particular adult theater and go somewhere else.

Re:How much does it cost? Who's paying for it? by lxs · 2012-07-27 22:02 · Score: 1

Of course. According to Jehova's Witnesses, blood transfusions are the work of the devil.

No "fucking in the streets" just yet by EdgePenguin · 2012-07-27 22:10 · Score: 1

Obviously this is far from a mass cure. Even if it is develops into a technique that can be widely applied, for low cost - there will be plenty who can't afford it (because pharmaceutical companies, when it comes down to it, care about shareholders not sick people) and there will be plenty who don't know they are infected, and continue to infect others. If any treatment requires your 'good' cells to overwhelm the cells with HIV DNA in them, its going to take a long time. This is not a shot-in-the-arm treatment.

Re:How much does it cost? Who's paying for it? by EmagGeek · 2012-07-28 05:28 · Score: 1

Now that we have Obamacare, the procedure will be available for free to anyone who needs it.

One thing is for certain about this "news" by ToddInSF · 2012-07-28 16:09 · Score: 1

Of which we've been fed hundreds of similar stories about HIV/AIDS over the decades.

1> You'll forget all about it in a day or so... 2> It won't change anything about the current theory on HIV/AIDS... 3> You'll come away from this feeling like everything's going to be OK, while still believing everything about HIV/AIDS you've been told by "the authorities", who constantly lie about HIV/AIDS stats, your risk of infection with "HIV", and your chances of developing "AIDS"...

Back in the early 90's Oprah promised us that half the heterosexual population in the US would have AIDS. Where's the US AIDS "epidemic" ?

Re:You are the DEFINITION of "Politically Correct" by residieu · 2012-07-30 01:10 · Score: 2

I have as much right not to be offended

No, you have no right not to be offended.

Everyone has the right not to be offended, no one can MAKE you be offended. Just don't confuse that with "I have the right to not be exposed to anything that I deem offensive." If he's offended by innocent displays of gay affection, well that's his problem.

Slashdot Mirror

Two More HIV Patients Now Virus-Free Thanks To Bone Marrow Transplant

96 of 159 comments (clear)