Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

'Boston Patients' Still HIV Free After Quitting Antiretroviral Meds

Posted by Unknown on from the 90s-dream-come-true dept.

ananyo writes "Two men with HIV may have been cured after they received stem-cell transplants to treat the blood cancer lymphoma, their doctors announced today at the International AIDS Society Conference in Kuala Lumpur. One of the men received stem-cell transplants to replace his blood-cell-producing bone marrow about three years ago, and the other five years ago. Their regimens were similar to one used on Timothy Ray Brown, the 'Berlin patient' who has been living HIV-free for six years and is the only adult to have been declared cured of HIV. Last July, doctors announced that the two men — the 'Boston patients' — appeared to be living without detectable levels of HIV in their blood, but they were still taking antiretroviral medications at that time." The story reports that they have only been off of medication for seven and fifteen weeks and they won't know for a year, but signs are looking positive.

117 comments

  1. Magic Johnson by Andrio · · Score: 3, Funny

    The only real cure we have for this disease.

    --
    The Internet King? I wonder if he could provide faster nudity.
    1. Re:Magic Johnson by Penguinisto · · Score: 2, Funny

      Actually, it wasn't Magic Johnson, but his massive pile of cash.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    2. Re:Magic Johnson by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No it won't; it's Magic!

    3. Re:Magic Johnson by OakDragon · · Score: 1

      Reminds me of a story a friend told me from way back when Magic Johnson first told the world about his HIV. (And yes this is an extremely tasteless joke, but that's not the point.)

      A joke was circulating that went like this:

      "Hey, did you hear that David Copperfield got AIDS?"
      "Wow, no... I didn't know..."
      "Yep. Got it from doing Magic."

      So my friend told this joke to a guy he works with. This guy wasn't the sharpest tool in the shed. My friend overheard him repeating the joke:

      "Hey, did you hear that David Copperfield got AIDS?"
      "Nope, I didn't know..."
      "Yeah ... He was fucking Magic Johnson!"

      --
      Dark Reflection
    4. Re:Magic Johnson by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *A* magic johnson.....

  2. Hey! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    The story reports that they have only been off of medication for seven and fifteen weeks and they won't know for a year, but signs are looking positive.

    Phrasing >=(

    1. Re:Hey! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They won't know for a year whether they've been off the medication for seven or fifteen weeks.

      Duh.

  3. FP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6szE_qmzavQ

  4. first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    suck it

  5. Men are Free... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    ...to butt fuck each other with impunity!

    1. Re:Men are Free... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Good, because it's your turn next.

    2. Re:Men are Free... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      What a fitting scene, there is audio of an announcement that HIV has now become reliably curable. The video shows a crescent earth in the distance. A slowly tumbling iron asteroid enters the frame from the right. The caption reads "YHWH is not mocked." Cue the soundtrack of "Pictor" by Robert Farnon.

    3. Re:Men are Free... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      With Obamacare just around the corner...you are correct. We are ALL next.

    4. Re:Men are Free... by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Oh, no.. God will punish us with all his might...

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    5. Re:Men are Free... by TheCarp · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Though they mostly were before, HIV transmission through that route is still not that bad. Now, IV drug use, that is where it spreads like wildfire. In fact, there is some speculation that bad drug policy which drove people to IV drugs and then to share needles that actually caused the first wave of the AIDS epidemic.

      http://www.ted.com/talks/elizabeth_pisani_sex_drugs_and_hiv_let_s_get_rational_1.html

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    6. Re:Men are Free... by nbauman · · Score: 1

      More than speculation. You can look it up in the American Journal of Public Health. That's pretty much the conclusion of all the researchers in the field.

      In New York City around 1985, half the AIDS cases were gay men, and the other half were IV drug users. The public health people were fighting with the Giuliani administration (mayor) and the Pataki administration (governor).

      This was nothing new. It was well-known that many infections were spread by IVDUs re-using needles. Hepatitis C probably caused more deaths than AIDS. And yet these idiots kept making it illegal to possess clean needles. They used to say, "The risk of dirty needles will discourage people from using IV drugs." Yeah, think that one out for a second. That was like, "If people could get safe abortions, it would promote immorality."

      Pataki claimed he couldn't support clean needles until his health commissioner, Barbara DeBuono, had reviewed the issue. DeBuono said she hadn't gotten around to reading the literature. DeBono finally lost her job when she got caught shoplifting. http://www.villagevoice.com/2002-10-08/news/pataki-s-sick-department-of-health/

    7. Re:Men are Free... by parkinglot777 · · Score: 1

      ...to butt fuck each other with impunity!

      With Obamacare just around the corner...you are correct. We are ALL next.

      First, you (or the other AC) attempted to blame the whole situation on homosexual -- a myth that HIV is from homosexual. The HIV is also from heterosexual as well (especially prostitution) and is under radar. Please take the bias out of the context.

      Then you are pulling politic into the topic; whereas, there is no relation to the topic at all. So both posts of AC are flame bait.

      Now back to the topic, I believe that incubation period if HIV can be longer than 1 year -- http://www.healthalert.net/Dispelling_Misconceptions/?p=31 -- so they should not make a BIG news out of their experiment when only a couple months have passed. This is just to get publicity. What would happen if all the sudden it is no longer true (they found the HIV again on the patients)?

    8. Re:Men are Free... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, no.. God will punish us with all his might...

      Fusta... Grow up a little, eh? Can you do that for us?

    9. Re:Men are Free... by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Sure, reverend, whatever you say.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    10. Re:Men are Free... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Republicans *ARE* our punishment...

    11. Re:Men are Free... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's damned hard for a man to get HIV without giving oral sex, getting anal sex, or shared needles. HIV is a blood-bourne disease that we got from butchering monkeys.

      And you're less likely to get it from a prostitute than you are from some drunk chick you pick up in a bar. Look up the stats.

    12. Re:Men are Free... by AlphaWolf_HK · · Score: 1

      Something that strikes me as odd is half of all homosexual black men in the US have HIV. I mean think about that - for every 100 black gay men you see, about 50 of them have HIV. Nobody really understands why either, because apparently they don't behave any riskier than any other HIV demographic.

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/31/gay-black-men-hiv-rates-m_n_3368144.html

      --
      Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
    13. Re:Men are Free... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 0

      First, you (or the other AC) attempted to blame the whole situation on homosexual -- a myth that HIV is from homosexual. The HIV is also from heterosexual as well

      You seem to be suffering from the Acquired Noun Deficiency Syndrome. Don't worry, even though there's no cure for most people suffering from it, it's not lethal. (Unfortunately.)

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
  6. signs are looking positive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    surely, signs are looking negative?

    1. Re:signs are looking positive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We're quite positive that the negative result of this test positively shows a negative trend in the negative condition that therefore indicates a positive benefit for the patients.

    2. Re:signs are looking positive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but are you HIV positive ?

    3. Re:signs are looking positive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      Lol

  7. Gene Therapy by MozeeToby · · Score: 1

    I remember recently there was some talk about research into curing some cancers by removing the patient's bone marrow, using HIV (ironically) to modify it, then transplanting that bone marrow back to the patient. What are the chances that something similar could be done here? To me it seems like all the pieces are in place; we know which gene confers some immunity, we are capable of editing targeted genes, and we can perform the bone marrow transplant. A marrow transplant would still be dangerous, but allotropic transplants are much less so since you get rid of the risk of graft vs host occurring.

    1. Re:Gene Therapy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      Chances are not to good really. There are several reason, but basically it's because of niggers.

    2. Re:Gene Therapy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      using HIV (ironically) to modify it, then transplanting that bone marrow back to the patient

      The movie you're thinking of is "I am Legend" and it was measles.

    3. Re:Gene Therapy by jb11 · · Score: 1

      You mean this? http://science.slashdot.org/story/11/08/11/1458205/cancer-cured-by-hiv

    4. Re:Gene Therapy by sjames · · Score: 1

      The problem is that it's the graft vs host that wipes out the HIV latent in the T cells. That would leave the patient as a potential carrier (though that would be better than developing AIDS).

  8. Summary misses a small detail. by SuricouRaven · · Score: 4, Informative

    There's a good chance this 'cure' will kill the patent. It works, but it's dangerous. The choice is between a treatment that may kill you now, or a disease that will kill you eventually. And either way you'll get to take lots and lots of drugs with nasty side effects.

    1. Re:Summary misses a small detail. by ddq · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Life tends to kill you eventually.

    2. Re:Summary misses a small detail. by SirGarlon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Unless I'm mistaken, that's what they used to say about chemotherapy. Finding ways to help patients survive the therapy may be an easier problem than finding ways to help them survive the disease.

      --
      [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
    3. Re:Summary misses a small detail. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This isn't a cure for the desease, this is two instances of people being cured, which could potentially lead to a cure without serious side effects (othat than those of genetic manipulation).

    4. Re:Summary misses a small detail. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Before the invention of the rat bastards at the AMA, it was said that with allopathic medicine you died of the cure, while with naturopathic medicine you died of the disease. IOW this has been a known quandary in medicine since long before you noticed. Cutting out a cancer might kill a patient, or they might live out the rest of a nice lifespan. Etc.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:Summary misses a small detail. by ArsonSmith · · Score: 0

      What! You mean people have to way risks? This is terrible the government should step in and decide what to do.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    6. Re:Summary misses a small detail. by zennyboy · · Score: 1

      *weigh?

    7. Re:Summary misses a small detail. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With "Life" I guess you mean another life form (bacteria, virus (though some haggle about if virus is life), a tiger), otherwise your statement make no scene.

    8. Re:Summary misses a small detail. by Sarten-X · · Score: 1

      Yes it should, because people are utterly terrible at weighing risks for themselves.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    9. Re:Summary misses a small detail. by MozeeToby · · Score: 5, Informative

      Marrow transplants are dangerous, and there's no obvious way to go about making them safer. The problems are a fundamental result of the procedure itself, not simply a side effect. First, you must kill off the patient's bone marrow, there's simply no way around it since the bone marrow is what is causing the problem you are trying to treat. The only ways we know how to do that are with near fatal doses of chemotherapy or radiation. Actually, the doses are fatal, if they do what they are supposed to do and the patient doesn't receive their transplant they will die (when you donate there is a time period after the patient has had their marrow destroyed but before you actually donate, if you change your mind and decide not to donate during that time period the patient will almost certainly die unless another donor can be found and medically cleared in a matter of days). Then there's a period of not days, but weeks where the patient has no functioning immune system to speak of, not to mention severely limited red blood cell production. Then there's graft vs host disease where the immune system rejects it's new host body, essentially like organ rejection except in this case it affects the entire body. Then there's liver and kidney damage (both from the chemo and/or radiation and as a result of the transplant itself) and increased risk of cancer (not related to the original cancer being treated).

      And that's all assuming that a suitable match can be found, which isn't guaranteed. A non-ideal donor increases the risk of complications, especially graft vs host (but can actually reduce the risk of cancer relapse interestingly). Part of the reason a donor can't always be found is that there simply aren't enough people on the registry, largely because people have this notion that donation is an extremely painful process. This was true in the past, but most donors now donate peripheral stem cells, where a drug (filgrastim) is given for a few days and donation is done through vein in the arm.

    10. Re:Summary misses a small detail. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just to clarify what parent is saying, it is not just possible that it will kill you, it is probable. Most people who receive bone marrow transplants die from the process. Other treatments may have a chance of killing people, but this goes far beyond normal risk.

    11. Re:Summary misses a small detail. by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      What's the insightful point here? This sentiment has been historically been raised in conversations about HIV as an excuse to not care about a disease that primarily affects homosexuals. It's far rarer that people say "Oh, well everyone has to go sometime" when discussing cancer research. So apologies if you're not being callous towards homosexuals with HIV, and are instead just making a trite observation that everyone dies.

    12. Re:Summary misses a small detail. by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Look, it's our old friend Tyranny, dressed in "I am better able to judge than you" clothes this time.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    13. Re:Summary misses a small detail. by dinfinity · · Score: 1

      There's a good chance this 'cure' will kill the patent. It works, but it's dangerous. The choice is between a treatment that may kill you now, or a disease that will kill you eventually

      It's a bit more complex than that, according to the article:

      1. "The finding is very important for people with HIV who also need blood-cell transplants, but the treatment is unlikely to be used more generally because the risks from [allogeneic] transplants are high."
      2. "Their doctors think that an immune response called graft-versus-host disease — a post-transplant reaction in which donated cells kill off a patient’s own cells — may have then wiped out the patients’ HIV reservoirs, potentially curing the men."

      For everybody with HIV and some other medical condition that requires allogeneic stem cell transplants, this should be a pure win-situation as there is no added risk.

    14. Re:Summary misses a small detail. by omnichad · · Score: 1

      And why can't the patient be their own stem cell donor? Aside from re-inheriting their propensity for marrow cancer?

    15. Re:Summary misses a small detail. by Sarten-X · · Score: 1

      Looks like the same old garb to me. Dictators, monarchs, and bureaucrats have always promoted themselves as making better decisions for the good of their people. The key lies in the definition of "better". Tyrants adopt a policy that benefits themselves most, when what's needed is a policy that benefits everyone.

      The existence of faults in a government does not mean it's worse than letting each person make indepentently bad decisions.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    16. Re:Summary misses a small detail. by nbauman · · Score: 1

      Another reason why donors can't be found is that during the genetic construction of HLA DNA, there is so much diversity that, if a sibling isn't available, your chances of finding a match are remote.

    17. Re:Summary misses a small detail. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that the "cure" only works when you can find a suitable donor with the special mutation that makes their t-cells essentially immune to HIV infection. This same mutation provided protection against the black plague and is therefor enriched in people of European descent, but is still quite rare.

    18. Re:Summary misses a small detail. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reading comprehension fail. The article says these donors did NOT have the mutation. My bad.

    19. Re:Summary misses a small detail. by ddq · · Score: 1

      Worldwide, HIV affects far more heterosexuals. While in developed countries, it is proportionally higher in homosexual men, almost 70% of people with HIV live in Sub-Saharan Africa. So if anything, I was being racist, not homophobic. (In reality, I was being neither, instead merely trite.)

    20. Re:Summary misses a small detail. by camperdave · · Score: 1

      Marrow transplants are dangerous, and there's no obvious way to go about making them safer. The problems are a fundamental result of the procedure itself, not simply a side effect. First, you must kill off the patient's bone marrow, there's simply no way around it since the bone marrow is what is causing the problem you are trying to treat. The only ways we know how to do that are with near fatal doses of chemotherapy or radiation. Actually, the doses are fatal, if they do what they are supposed to do and the patient doesn't receive their transplant they will die (when you donate there is a time period after the patient has had their marrow destroyed but before you actually donate, if you change your mind and decide not to donate during that time period the patient will almost certainly die unless another donor can be found and medically cleared in a matter of days). Then there's a period of not days, but weeks where the patient has no functioning immune system to speak of, not to mention severely limited red blood cell production. Then there's graft vs host disease where the immune system rejects it's new host body, essentially like organ rejection except in this case it affects the entire body. Then there's liver and kidney damage (both from the chemo and/or radiation and as a result of the transplant itself) and increased risk of cancer (not related to the original cancer being treated).

      And that's all assuming that a suitable match can be found, which isn't guaranteed. A non-ideal donor increases the risk of complications, especially graft vs host (but can actually reduce the risk of cancer relapse interestingly). Part of the reason a donor can't always be found is that there simply aren't enough people on the registry, largely because people have this notion that donation is an extremely painful process. This was true in the past, but most donors now donate peripheral stem cells, where a drug (filgrastim) is given for a few days and donation is done through vein in the arm.

      My brother-in-law is going through this right now, except he is acting as his own donor. They extracted some of his stem cells before the procedure, and have re-implanted them. He's in the immune system rebuild phase now.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    21. Re:Summary misses a small detail. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In this particular case, the AIDS bone marrow transplant "functional cure" depends on the marrow not producing a certain protein, SAMHD1, the lack of which "starves" HIV. However, only 3% of the population has this natural HIV immunity. And obviously, it's not going to be the case with the patient's original marrow.

    22. Re:Summary misses a small detail. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You knew exactly what he meant you obtuse imbecile.

    23. Re:Summary misses a small detail. by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 3, Insightful

      (when you donate there is a time period after the patient has had their marrow destroyed but before you actually donate, if you change your mind and decide not to donate during that time period the patient will almost certainly die unless another donor can be found and medically cleared in a matter of days)

      Umm, no.

      Had this done last fall.

      The Donor was donating before they started the chemotherapy on me. Until he'd provided enough stem cells, I just lay in the hospital bed getting nothing at all done....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    24. Re:Summary misses a small detail. by evilRhino · · Score: 1

      Yes, the mortality rate for stem-cell transplants is improving, but it is still not zero. I believe the rate was ~20% in 2009. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/05/130528180857.htm

    25. Re:Summary misses a small detail. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's right, don't make a scene.

    26. Re:Summary misses a small detail. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What the fuck is the actual point you're trying to make? Invasive medical procedures are dangerous...? You don't say.

      Define "good chance." Every patient I know of this being tried on has not only survived, but some even cured.

      People have died on the table while getting breast implants. So, I think the risk:reward matrix for attempting to cure yourself of AIDS is worth the trouble.

    27. Re:Summary misses a small detail. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You didn't RTFA did you?

    28. Re:Summary misses a small detail. by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      It's far rarer that people say "Oh, well everyone has to go sometime" when discussing cancer research

      But more people should. When you consider how much money has been thrown at cancer and how little progress has actually been made (early detection is many times more important than any of the "advances" that have been made,) one has to wonder exactly how many ways that money could have been used to do some real good.

      Here is physicist Paul Davies that has looked into cancer research. $100 billion in research just in the United States since Nixon declared war on it. Eye opener at 5:30.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    29. Re:Summary misses a small detail. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Before the invention of the rat bastards at the AMA, it was said that with allopathic medicine you died of the cure, while with naturopathic medicine you died of the disease. IOW this has been a known quandary in medicine since long before you noticed. Cutting out a cancer might kill a patient, or they might live out the rest of a nice lifespan. Etc.

      What the hell are you blithering about? The AMA changed nothing about this quandary. And "allopathic" is a made-up word used by proponents of alt-med woo to insult scientific medicine.

    30. Re:Summary misses a small detail. by sjames · · Score: 1

      Of course, they needed the transplant anyway for lymphoma which would certainly have killed them faster than the HIV. getting cured of HIV is a pretty nice consolation prize.

    31. Re:Summary misses a small detail. by sjames · · Score: 1

      The stem cells are what malfunctioned in the patient. You'd be putting the cancer back in them.

    32. Re:Summary misses a small detail. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Life tends to kill you eventually.

      Agreed. I am diagnosed and being treated for an unrelated slow-onset disease, acromegaly (posting AC because of). This disease does not kill quickly. First, progressively over years lot of body functions deteriorate while the endocrinology (moods etc.) is not pleasant either. Then, probably in your 50's you could die of some organ failing (e.g. heart), cancer, or some other disease for which the risk is increased by this disease.

      I've spent a couple of years feeling generally miserable before I was diagnosed, and I was not looking forward to experiencing those symptoms increased, before passing away slowly and painfully. If I have any choice, I would prefer going fast after a fulfilled life. So I have opted for treatment (brain surgery, then medication which would be debilitatingly expensive were it not for medical insurance, and which has some unpleasant side effects), also eating healthy and exercising, and doing some activities, even risky ones, besides a boring IT job. I guess dying in a motorcycling or shooting or skydiving accident is still preferable to the aforementioned.

    33. Re:Summary misses a small detail. by omnichad · · Score: 1

      I'll admit to not knowing much about every cancer, but would it really affect every cell in the body simultaneously or would there be a pocket of good cells somewhere?

    34. Re:Summary misses a small detail. by sjames · · Score: 1

      In the case of a cancer where marrow transplant is curative, there would be no way to be sure, but it will tend to be everywhere.

      Note that this is distinct from stem cell rescue where the patient receives a drastic treatment for a non-marrow cancer that would destroy their marrow as a secondary effect. In those cases, they do donate stem cells to themselves.

    35. Re:Summary misses a small detail. by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Life is an STD, of the terminal variety.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    36. Re:Summary misses a small detail. by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Agreed. I am diagnosed and being treated for an unrelated slow-onset disease, acromegaly (posting AC because of). This disease does not kill quickly.

      So, you're an Acromegalic Coward? The "slow-onset" part feels a bit confusing, I've always thought that the most common early symptom is fast growth during puberty. If that's the case, the "slow onset" description seems a bit ironic.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
  9. There's finally more money in the cure.... by Picass0 · · Score: -1, Troll

    The funny thing about medicine... as long as there's money to be made in selling the treatment you can be sure there won't be a cure. The treatment will always follow the bigger money.

    A patient of chemo for cancer will take many thousands of dollars each year to combat their disease, so this is where cancer treatment seems to have stalled out in the US.

    The "AIDS cocktail" has become quite inexpensive and costs a few bucks a week (until you get insurance numbers involved) so it's no surprising to see a more expensive treatment appear. A Stem Cell Transplant is a cash cow, with related costs adding up to $150-300k USD.

    1. Re:There's finally more money in the cure.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except the stem cell treatment in this case was for cancer.

      But don't let facts get in the way of a good conspiracy.

    2. Re:There's finally more money in the cure.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Risks of a bone marrow transplant make it *very* unfavourable as a treatment for HIV in most cases. Fancy cutting off your foot to cure that veruca?

    3. Re:There's finally more money in the cure.... by Sarten-X · · Score: 3, Insightful

      From an historical perspective: Covered wagon travel has become quite inexpensive, and costs a few bucks for a team of oxen, so it's not surprising to see a more expensive means of travel appear. A steam locomotive is a cash cow, with related costs adding up $15-30 USD.

      Of course stem cell transplants are expensive now, but having a clear road ahead for AIDS treatment opens the door to future optimization and improvement. As the technique matures, it will become routine enough that the cutting-edge treatments you read about on Slashdot will indeed continue to be expensive replacements for current technologies, and those technologies will themselves become cheaper as they mature. Of course, as the cures mature and become part of every doctor's toolbox, the general public, including yourself, will cease to pay any attention to their dropping costs or minor improvements.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    4. Re:There's finally more money in the cure.... by smooth+wombat · · Score: 1

      as long as there's money to be made in selling the treatment you can be sure there won't be a cure.

      Such as with smallpox and rinderpest, right? Might as well include polio on the list as well since except for some pockets in Afghanistan and Pakistan, thanks to the Taliban and their distrust of modern medicine (like you apparently), polio is essentially gone from this planet.

      Just think how much money these companies have lost by finding a cure for these afflictions rather than just treating them. Potentially hundreds of billions of dollars. How horrible that they found a cheap cure rather than sticking it to people with high priced treatments.

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    5. Re:There's finally more money in the cure.... by the+gnat · · Score: 5, Informative

      A patient of chemo for cancer will take many thousands of dollars each year to combat their disease, so this is where cancer treatment seems to have stalled out in the US.

      Or maybe it's because treating cancer is insanely fucking difficult, because it isn't actually one disease but hundreds or thousands of different cellular regulation disorders which simply happen to have broadly similar effects, because really weeding out every last tumor cell would require therapies so drastic that they'd be likely to kill the patient, and because many cancers tend to evolve drug resistance over time. The costs of cancer go way beyond prescriptions for a few name-brand drugs (which aren't even available for everything); they include older therapies, hospitalization, and surgery. Insurance companies would save multiple hundreds of thousands of dollars per patient if there was a magic drug that cured cancer, and would happily pay a large amount for such a drug, so it's not like there's no profit to be had.

    6. Re:There's finally more money in the cure.... by benjfowler · · Score: 0

      The solution is easy. Remove the profit motive, and base all medical research and treatment on clinical need, not profit.

      Isn't it interesting that "statist" national healthcare systems, pharmaceutical patent busting, publicly-funded medical research etc, has was, WAY better outcomes than the joke privatized hell that passes for a healthcare system in America?

      What you get in America, is expensive gold-plated crap for the Worried Well, and dick pills and statins for rich old men too irresponsible to look after themselves. Meanwhile, half the developing world is dying of preventable disease, because Big Pharma and their warped priorities don't see any profit in it.

    7. Re:There's finally more money in the cure.... by Nadaka · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The cures for pandemics have never been a product of corporate research... They are always the product of government funded or subsidized research.

    8. Re:There's finally more money in the cure.... by camperdave · · Score: 1

      The cures for pandemics have never been a product of corporate research... They are always the product of government funded or subsidized research.

      ... and who do you think the government is funding or subsidizing? Oh! That's right, the corporate research facilities.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    9. Re:There's finally more money in the cure.... by hawkfish · · Score: 1

      The cures for pandemics have never been a product of corporate research... They are always the product of government funded or subsidized research.

      ... and who do you think the government is funding or subsidizing? Oh! That's right, the corporate research facilities.

      Not in Europe or other civilised places. In civilised countries, public health is studied by public research institutions at public universities.

      --
      You will not drink with us, but you would taste our steel? - Walter Matthau, The Pirates
    10. Re:There's finally more money in the cure.... by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      A patient of chemo for cancer will take many thousands of dollars each year to combat their disease, so this is where cancer treatment seems to have stalled out in the US.

      I had CLL. I received chemotherapy twice in three years.

      Doctor decided that a bone marrow transplant was worth the risk, since I was going to run out of chemo options really quickly at that rate.

      So, had allogenic stem cell transplant. Donor was almost a perfect match (he had a virus that I'd never been exposed to, but otherwise perfect).

      No longer have CLL (yes, they check regularly, and will do so for a long time to come).

      So, no, cancer treatment hasn't "stalled out" in the USA. It's progress is just...spotty. Some forms of cancer are easier to deal with than others, and some forms of treatment are becoming safer than they used to be....

      P.S. Oh, and if you want to do something vaguely worthwhile, try donating bone marrow/stem cells - http://bethematch.org/. You might just save a life....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    11. Re:There's finally more money in the cure.... by the+gnat · · Score: 1

      Isn't it interesting that "statist" national healthcare systems, pharmaceutical patent busting, publicly-funded medical research etc, has was, WAY better outcomes than the joke privatized hell that passes for a healthcare system in America?

      We have publicly-funded medical research in America too. In fact, it dwarfs most other countries, both in terms of money and productivity. The problem is that this research doesn't automatically lead to cures - developing new therapies is still extraordinarily expensive and slow. There have been many solutions proposed for this, but it's hard to point to an example where massive government spending magically solves the problem. It's also worth pointing out that the treatment covered in this article was done in the US, at a Harvard-associated hospital, and I would be surprised if NIH funding was not involved.

      Aside from the research, I think you're also misunderstanding the nature of other first-world healthcare systems. The NHS in Britain is towards one extreme, where not only the insurance but most of the hospitals are state-run, but on the other end, there are plenty of countries with essentially private healthcare (providers and insurers) not so dissimilar from America's. What they have in common is effective universal coverage and far more government regulation of insurance than in the US. But it is not simply a matter of the government nationalizing the entire system, despite what ideologues on both the left and the right would claim.

      What you get in America, is expensive gold-plated crap for the Worried Well, and dick pills and statins for rich old men too irresponsible to look after themselves. Meanwhile, half the developing world is dying of preventable disease, because Big Pharma and their warped priorities don't see any profit in it.

      So what's your solution? The American government isn't going to step in and cure all those diseases in the developing world, because the taxpayers don't want their government pouring billions into TB and malaria research instead of the diseases that they personally have. On the other hand, Bill Gates is now using his (ill-earned) billions to fight these diseases.

    12. Re:There's finally more money in the cure.... by Nadaka · · Score: 1

      Mostly universities.

    13. Re:There's finally more money in the cure.... by the+gnat · · Score: 1

      The cures for pandemics have never been a product of corporate research

      Except that, to the extent that HIV is now largely survivable for those with access to the drugs, AIDS was cured by corporate R&D (aided, of course, by a lot of government-subsidized academic basic research). You can split hairs over whether protease inhibitor cocktails count as a "cure", but if you actually RTFA, maybe you'd understand why the pharma companies concentrated on making simpler treatments. Bone marrow transplants for every AIDS patient in the world is not a trivial matter.

    14. Re:There's finally more money in the cure.... by the+gnat · · Score: 1

      Not in Europe or other civilised places. In civilised countries, public health is studied by public research institutions at public universities.

      We do this in America too - perhaps you've heard of the National Institutes of Health? But ultimately the actual drugs are made by private companies in most places, Europe included, because drug development is such a shitty business that most governments would (wisely) prefer to let someone else deal with it.

    15. Re:There's finally more money in the cure.... by mmcxii · · Score: 1

      Merck Darmstadt and Bayer don't do R&D? That's news to me!

  10. "signs are looking positive." by ledow · · Score: 1

    "signs are looking positive."

    I hope not. Wouldn't that rather spoil the point?

  11. of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    now that this gen-X'er is old and married we have 20-minute at-home HIV tests and a cure is in sight

  12. 'Boston patients'? by wonkey_monkey · · Score: -1, Flamebait

    'Boston Patients' Still HIV Free After Quitting Antiretroviral Meds

    Is this something to do with a "Boston Marrige"? I thought we'd moved on.

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  13. Not a miracle? by morcego · · Score: 0

    I wonder when some church is going to claim their did it.
    And another will claim these people are no longer human.

    --
    morcego
    1. Re:Not a miracle? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      I wonder when some church is going to claim their did it.
      And another will claim these people are no longer human.

      Well, on the plus side, if it makes you not human, then the bible doesn't apply to you as you're no longer one of god's creatures. Cavort!

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Not a miracle? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dogs are not human, but they are still God's creatures. They simply don't have to follow the rules people do. So you're 1/2 right, 1/2 idiot.

    3. Re:Not a miracle? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Dogs are not human, but they are still God's creatures. They simply don't have to follow the rules people do. So you're 1/2 right, 1/2 idiot.

      If you're taking this thread seriously, you're all idiot.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  14. Stem cells by Larry_Dillon · · Score: 1

    Are these the same stem cells that the Christian Right was trying to ban for research?

    --
    Competition Good, Monopoly Bad.
    1. Re:Stem cells by Petron · · Score: 4, Informative

      Appears to come from modifying adult blood-forming stem cells. Adult stem cells have little to no controversy.

      --
      if (it != oneThing) it = another;
    2. Re:Stem cells by Chrisq · · Score: 1

      Are these the same stem cells that the Christian Right was trying to ban for research?

      Not that I approve of the Christian Right, but I don't think so. These are bone marrow transplants that give blood stem cells from an adult donor. I think that the Christian Right are only against embryonic stem cell research

    3. Re:Stem cells by the+gnat · · Score: 1

      No, these are transplants from bone marrow donors - no embryos or cloning involved.

    4. Re:Stem cells by Petron · · Score: 2

      Yes, the thing that comes to mind is: Would a doctor encourage abortion more if they can harvest embryonic stems cells... or would they fertilize eggs and have them grow in the lab to be harvested later. If you view life beginning at conception (which many people do, not just Christians), this would be a huge ethically questionable act.

      --
      if (it != oneThing) it = another;
    5. Re:Stem cells by camperdave · · Score: 1

      No, the ones they are trying to ban come from killing humans while they are in their fetal or embryonic stage.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    6. Re:Stem cells by sjames · · Score: 1

      So would IVF. Most of those eggs don't get implanted. They either go in the incinerator or get frozen indefinitely.

  15. correction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    re: "blood cancer lymphoma"

    Leukemia is a blood cancer.
    Lymphoma is, like the name suggests, lymphic system.

  16. Does anyone know. by Chrisq · · Score: 1

    The previous "cure" was following a bone marrow transplant from someone with a mutation that made them highly resistant to HIV. This article makes it sound as though it was the transplant itself that cured the HIV. Does anyone know if these transplants also involved a resistant donor?

    1. Re:Does anyone know. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The article mentions the mutation.

    2. Re:Does anyone know. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oops, I missed the part where it said these donors did NOT have the mutation. My bad.

  17. the "mystery reservoir" must be marrow then by peter303 · · Score: 1

    HIV levels go to undetectable in many HIV-drug patients, then reappear once off the drugs even if they have taken them over a decade. It was postulated there was a mystery resevoir for the virus. And/or it integrated into the victims DNA.

    1. Re:the "mystery reservoir" must be marrow then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      postulated there was a mystery resevoir for the virus. And/or it integrated into the victims DNA.

      O_O

      is this science on slashdot?

    2. Re:the "mystery reservoir" must be marrow then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a latent resevoir of T cells that have HIV integrated into their genomes. These T cells can hang out for decades undetected. When the T cells get activated, the HIV becomes active and can spread to other T cells, thus initiating another round of infection.

    3. Re:the "mystery reservoir" must be marrow then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      "HIV levels go to undetectable in many HIV-drug patients, then reappear once off the drugs even if they have taken them over a decade. It was postulated there was a mystery resevoir for the virus. And/or it integrated into the victims DNA."

      AIDS is a syndrome of immune collapse that has multiple causes, HIV doesnt cause AIDS it's an opportunistic infection that is closely associated because it cant even survive inside a human body that isnt compromised. Massive doses of dangerous drugs can be used to destroy the HIV but that doesnt address the underlying problem, so it's natural to expect them to come back at some point.

      Of course none of this is nearly as useful for making money as the HIV=AIDS myth, so you arent likely to hear it from mainstream sources.

    4. Re:the "mystery reservoir" must be marrow then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      .... And out comes the tard brigade.

  18. orly? by slashmydots · · Score: 1

    "but signs are looking positive" I think they mean signs are looking negative, lol.

  19. above problems are fixable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    one of my best friends is a biochem PhD who told me about this approach a few years ago but with a twist: he said they've isolated the sequence that causes the HIV resistance & that in a few yrs it should be possible to extract some of patients own marrow, splice it in, culture & replace. in theory you don't need to kill off patients own marrow as long as you can culture & inject enough to produce enough resistant T cells...

    problem is even if (probably when) they solve the remaining technical problems it isn't scalable as a treatment & would likely only ever be affordable to the Magic Johnson class patients...

  20. Chemotherapy by sjbe · · Score: 1

    Unless I'm mistaken, that's what they used to say about chemotherapy.

    They still do. Chemotherapy is quite dangerous and even in the best cases is pretty brutal on the patient. I've had the misfortune to see several people close to me go through chemo and it is an awful treatment with no guarantee of success. In some cases the chemo itself can be lethal.

    1. Re:Chemotherapy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know that it's always brutal -- as I understand it, recent years have seen the development of relatively benign chemo drugs for some cancers. It's a question of what you have and what the state-of-the-art drug for that cancer is like (and whether it's available to you, and whether it turns out to be effective for you). But yeah, in most cases chemo is no walk in the park.

  21. Free ride on US research by sjbe · · Score: 1

    Isn't it interesting that "statist" national healthcare systems, pharmaceutical patent busting, publicly-funded medical research etc, has was, WAY better outcomes than the joke privatized hell that passes for a healthcare system in America?

    In no small part those results are due to those state managed health care systems getting a free ride on the back of research conducted by US companies. 12 of the top 20 medical device companies are based in the US. The US spends about $140 billion on medical research each year (roughly half from industry, a third from government and the rest from various philanthropic organizations) and much of the rest of the world gets to avoid this cost. It's much easier and cheaper to wait for someone else to figure out the cure and then just copy it.

    While I'm not going to defend the flaws in the US healthcare system (which you rightly point out are many), part of the reason is because the US is paying the much of the cost of all the research everyone else gets to enjoy.

    1. Re:Free ride on US research by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In no small part those results are due to those state managed health care systems getting a free ride on the back of research conducted by US companies. 12 of the top 20 medical device companies are based in the US.

      You understand that the rest of the western world does not get to have free access to medical products developed in the US, right? Health care costs are rising throughout the world precisely because of the cost of new therapies. There is no free riding going on.

  22. Do the drugs matter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder if the specific drugs used in the SCT conditioning regimen matter? The Berlin patient, AFAIK, received BEAM (carmustine, etoposide, melphalan and, significantly, cytarabine/ARA-C). ARA-C is antiviral in addition to cytotoxic - I wonder if the massive doses of ARA-C reduced the viral load enough that the graft-vs-host effect and immune reconstitution obliterated the rest of the HIV infection?

  23. Other options by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would like to live for 10,000 years. I wonder if Stemcell transplant options could mkae that a possibility.

  24. We're not just sure by The_Revelation · · Score: 1

    We're HIV Positive