Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

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

Soulskill posted about 2 years ago | from the cures-that-aren't-easy dept.

Medicine 159

Diggester tips this quote from NBC News: "Two men unlucky enough to get both HIV and cancer have been seemingly cleared of the virus, raising hope that science may yet find a way to cure the infection that causes AIDS, 30 years into the epidemic. The researchers are cautious in declaring the two men cured, but more than two years after receiving bone marrow transplants, HIV can't be detected anywhere in their bodies. 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."

cancel ×

159 comments

Haha lmao (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40795017)

they had HIV such a thing...

I bet you're cheeks are absolute garbage. Turn to dust and die now!

Re:Haha lmao (0)

X0563511 (793323) | about 2 years ago | (#40795091)

Yea, 'cause the only way to get HIV is homosexual relations...

Re:Haha lmao (1)

19thNervousBreakdown (768619) | about 2 years ago | (#40795861)

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.

Re:Haha lmao (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40796069)

You are quite dense.

Re:Haha lmao (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40796605)

Yall are postin in a troll thread.

Re:Haha lmao (0)

19thNervousBreakdown (768619) | about 2 years ago | (#40796725)

I am gay.

Re:Haha lmao (1)

X0563511 (793323) | about 2 years ago | (#40797643)

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.

Re:Haha lmao (1, Offtopic)

Jeng (926980) | about 2 years ago | (#40795631)

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.

In other news (4, Funny)

Tr3vin (1220548) | about 2 years ago | (#40795025)

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

Re:In other news (0, Troll)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about 2 years ago | (#40795051)

I'm sure the Republicans will move to keep government funding away from this any time now, to keep extramarital sex deadly.

Re:In other news (0)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about 2 years ago | (#40795093)

*deadly in the same sense as riding a sportbike - unless you're very careful and wear ATGATT :-P

Re:In other news (2)

wisnoskij (1206448) | about 2 years ago | (#40795243)

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%.

Re:In other news (2)

xmousex (661995) | about 2 years ago | (#40795497)

Everything Else = 0

this
right here
is hilarious

and definitely wrong

Re:In other news (1)

wisnoskij (1206448) | about 2 years ago | (#40795799)

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.

Re:In other news (1)

M1FCJ (586251) | about 2 years ago | (#40795789)

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 (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40795425)

*deadly in the same sense as walking through Camden - unless you carry A GAT :-P

Re:In other news (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40795239)

Are you a fucking idiot?

Re:In other news (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40795923)

Thoughtcrime should be a Capital Offense if you don't believe in the current trendy views of the world!

Burn the Witches! Especially the ones who own the provately traded company Chik-Fil-A....

NO MOR THREE THINKIN'

Political Correctness (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40795189)

I can see already by the downmods that this thread is going to be regarded as very politically incorrect on Slashdot. Any statement criticizing the holy Chick-Fil-A will offend a lot of delicate readers with mod points.

Re:Political Correctness (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40795237)

Yes Chick-Fil-A "Chicken for Geeks, Pickles that matter"

Re:Political Correctness (0)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about 2 years ago | (#40795523)

Why did I just have a vision of Chick-Fil-A being a future lobbying-based megacorporation that now runs a chain of churches?

No CFA is CLOSED on Sunday (1)

RobertLTux (260313) | about 2 years ago | (#40795819)

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.

Re:No CFA is CLOSED on Sunday (1)

lister king of smeg (2481612) | about 2 years ago | (#40796091)

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.

Re:Political Correctness (1)

networkBoy (774728) | about 2 years ago | (#40795857)

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

Re:Political Correctness (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40795925)

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 (0)

gtbritishskull (1435843) | about 2 years ago | (#40795787)

I believe in voting with your dollars, and do not believe that a business should getting involved in politics. I am in favor of gay marriage, so I don't want to support Chick-Fil-A.

But, all of this talk about Chick-Fil-A these past few days has made me REALLY want a chicken sandwich. I don't know how much longer I can hold out.

I guess, at least when it comes to chicken sandwiches, any publicity is good publicity.

Re:Political Correctness (1)

Applekid (993327) | about 2 years ago | (#40795961)

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

Re:Political Correctness (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40796333)

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...

Re:Political Correctness (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40796497)

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.

Re:Political Correctness (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40796815)

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:Political Correctness (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40797743)

I suppose when you buttfuckers take over I'll have to be killed, because there's no way I'm ever going to accept it as normal or support the notion of homosexual marriage. No one I know on the right is talking about firing up the gas chambers for gays. Whatever you do in the privacy of your own bedroom is your business. I just want you to GET OUT OF MY FACE WITH IT, and stop telling me it's normal, because it isn't.The most heated and hateful rhetoric's coming from the left on this one.

Re:In other news (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40795305)

Your sir are a fucking idiot.

Re:In other news (0)

eternaldoctorwho (2563923) | about 2 years ago | (#40795751)

Your sir are a fucking idiot.

That. Is. HILARIOUS.

100% clean bone marrow here ladies (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40795029)

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

Immunosupressants? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40795115)

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? (3, Informative)

slazzy (864185) | about 2 years ago | (#40795149)

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

Re:Immunosupressants? (5, Informative)

MozeeToby (1163751) | about 2 years ago | (#40795493)

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? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40797055)

For this to work, you (a) have to have a sibling, and (b) better hope that she/he is not as big of a stank ho/IV drug user as you are.

Re:Immunosupressants? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40797731)

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? (5, Informative)

brainzach (2032950) | about 2 years ago | (#40795279)

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? (3, Informative)

MozeeToby (1163751) | about 2 years ago | (#40795527)

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? (2)

brainzach (2032950) | about 2 years ago | (#40796051)

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? (2)

alantus (882150) | about 2 years ago | (#40797339)

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? (1)

EvanED (569694) | about 2 years ago | (#40796271)

[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? (1)

MozeeToby (1163751) | about 2 years ago | (#40796633)

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.

Well, yes and no. (3, Informative)

Frosty Piss (770223) | about 2 years ago | (#40795119)

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.

Re:Well, yes and no. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40795151)

Anal love is tough love.

Re:Well, yes and no. (3, Informative)

Antipater (2053064) | about 2 years ago | (#40795153)

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.

Re:Well, yes and no. (0, Troll)

slashmydots (2189826) | about 2 years ago | (#40796141)

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.

Re:Well, yes and no. (1)

DM9290 (797337) | about 2 years ago | (#40796219)

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.

Re:Well, yes and no. (1)

slashmydots (2189826) | about 2 years ago | (#40796667)

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. (1)

mattack2 (1165421) | about 2 years ago | (#40797033)

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. (2)

Rhacman (1528815) | about 2 years ago | (#40796429)

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.

Re:Well, yes and no. (2)

ultranova (717540) | about 2 years ago | (#40796923)

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.

Statistical probablity? (5, Funny)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | about 2 years ago | (#40795177)

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".

Re:Statistical probablity? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40795557)

And then a farmer walks over to them and points out that it's a sheep.

Re:Statistical probablity? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40795997)

I had a big chuckle over this. Thanks

Re:Statistical probablity? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40795625)

All that we can say now is, this side of that cow, in this light appears to be black to both of you at this moment in time.

Re:Statistical probablity? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40795765)

That is still to imprecise. I am looking at three objects each called black. Yet they are three different colors. A real mathematician would describe the intensity and variation of the light waves coming from the cow.

Re:Statistical probablity? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40796365)

You certain that wasn't an auditor who would only assess the one side of beef?

Re:Well, yes and no. (2)

sjames (1099) | about 2 years ago | (#40795195)

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. (2)

wisnoskij (1206448) | about 2 years ago | (#40795301)

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.

Re:Well, yes and no. (1)

Pulzar (81031) | about 2 years ago | (#40795501)

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.

Re:Well, yes and no. (1)

Vellmont (569020) | about 2 years ago | (#40795921)

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?

Are they Sure? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40795141)

Their HIV Positive!

Genetic Lottery Winner? (4, Interesting)

rmdingler (1955220) | about 2 years ago | (#40795193)

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?

Re:Genetic Lottery Winner? (4, Informative)

realityimpaired (1668397) | about 2 years ago | (#40795363)

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/ [www.cbc.ca]

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? (1)

rmdingler (1955220) | about 2 years ago | (#40797297)

Live long enough and technology will allow you to prosper.

Re:Genetic Lottery Winner? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40795381)

It is present in up to 10% of people from North European ancestry. This will help few in its current form (bone marrow transplants by themselves are spooky), but taking the mutation and using it for gene therapy may well be the miracle people have been hoping for.

custom genetic splicing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40795545)

I have a biochem phd friend who told me at least a yr ago that they'd isolated the gene that provides the hiv resistance & that it should be possible in theory to extract marrow from an infected patient, splice in the magic gene, grow & transplant new marrow & get same result as this. the problem would be that it would be cost-prohibitive to scale (since it would be individualized). at lunch today one of my DBAs told me he'd heard about this on npr this morning (2 patients declared "cured") so I assumed this was what they'd done (& told them what friend had told me last yr). interestingly it then occurred to me that you should be able to do the same thing w/a transplant from a resistant donor which ended up being what actually happened...

Re:Genetic Lottery Winner? (1)

MozeeToby (1163751) | about 2 years ago | (#40795591)

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.

Ah, yes. (5, Funny)

tgd (2822) | about 2 years ago | (#40795325)

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

Where's the guy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40795339)

Where's the guy who's going to claim that there's no real scientific evidence to prove that HIV is related to AIDS?

Isn't it ironic (1)

Stickerboy (61554) | about 2 years ago | (#40795393)

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...

Re:Isn't it ironic (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40795465)

Lucky pharmaceutical companies, is more like it.

Re:Isn't it ironic (2)

reub2000 (705806) | about 2 years ago | (#40795637)

Sounds more like starting smaller fires in order to control a much larger fire.

Re:Isn't it ironic (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40795783)

"Well, I don't think we're exactly sure what did it yet, but one of the treatments we've given you has eradicated all traces of HIV from your body!"
"It did? WOO! Now I... um... wait, you're... not sure what did it?"
"No, and we're not sure if it'll come back. So we're going to have to keep a close study on you for the next, say, thirty years or more, depending on circumstances. That'll be thirty-plus years of testing, research, studying, and possibly more treatments and drugs under clinically sterile, scientific rigor, and you can't go do anything fun that might screw up the tests. But hey, now you'll live long enough for complete research to be performed! Isn't that great?"
"Yeeeeeeah. That sounds... really, really great. Super."

Re:Isn't it ironic (1)

Vellmont (569020) | about 2 years ago | (#40795959)

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.

Re:Isn't it ironic (1)

DM9290 (797337) | about 2 years ago | (#40796249)

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!

Erased Immune systems (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40795479)

Usually, as far as I know, a bone marrow transplant occurs after the patients immune system is erased by radiation. Since HIV does its thing by controlling the victims immune system it stand to follow that the HIV virus would take a severe beating if not an out and out death sentence for HIV virus.
              The catch is that this is a very high risk procedure and expensive and painful to the donor as well. If we could clone some bone marrow cells from a patient know to be HIV immune or resistant and then install them in the AIDS patients it might be the answer although expense and risk will remain high. For patients in poorer nations this would not be available at all.

How much does it cost? Who's paying for it? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40795583)

This sounds hugely expensive. I hope the taxpayer isn't footing the bill.

IF I live a risky lifestyle I should have to live with the consequences. It's a free society and you shouldn't be prohibited from taking risks. But you should also be responsible for the results of treating your body without respect.

Re:How much does it cost? Who's paying for it? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40795717)

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

Re:How much does it cost? Who's paying for it? (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 2 years ago | (#40795723)

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

Re:How much does it cost? Who's paying for it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40796877)

IF I live a risky lifestyle I should have to live with the consequences. It's a free society and you shouldn't be prohibited from taking risks. But you should also be responsible for the results of treating your body without respect.

I truly hope you have a blood infusion at the hospital and get HIV infected blood.
Then your parents, family, and friends can be equally disgusted with your risky lifestyle that is clearly responsible for your misfortune.

Going outdoors, in full clear view where any car with a drunk behind the wheel can run up into your front yard and hit you, causing such a situation to happen. Ambulance, ER, infected blood, and it's all your fault for not treating your body with respect.

Old News? (1)

caknuckle (2521404) | about 2 years ago | (#40795643)

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

HIV = AIDS (-1, Troll)

DanZee (2422648) | about 2 years ago | (#40795915)

I know it's heresy to say so, but HIV is only junk DNA that the immune system didn't clean out. If the bone marrow transplant made their immune systems healthy again, it means it they wouldn't have junk DNA floating around their bloodstreams because it was able to clean it out. Of course, that shoots holes in the theory that HIV "causes" AIDS and throws out 20+ years of HIV research, but maybe researchers will get on the right path to finding a cure.

Re:HIV = AIDS (1)

Jeng (926980) | about 2 years ago | (#40796039)

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

Have you ever taken a biology class?

Re:HIV = AIDS (1)

fredgiblet (1063752) | about 2 years ago | (#40796313)

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

SciAm had a good article about natural 'immunity' (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40796009)

http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=E44431DB-E7F2-99DF-3E691F52A173BA33

The print article was interesting. I didn't know there were a small number of people with HIV that can successfully contain the virus and never get AIDS, without any kind of treatment or drugs at all.

Become a donor (5, Informative)

QuantumRiff (120817) | about 2 years ago | (#40796077)

Lots of people don't realize anyone can be a bone marrow donor.. Be the Match [bethematch.org] 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.

Re:Become a donor (1)

steveb3210 (962811) | about 2 years ago | (#40796247)

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 (1)

Jeng (926980) | about 2 years ago | (#40796255)

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

Re:Become a donor (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40796987)

The cheek-swab it to type you for compatibility. Bone marrow for donation has to come from your bones and is not a painless procedure, but the donation can be life-saving for the recipient. I don't want to discourage you or anyone else from signing-up, but you should know what donating bone marrow entails (and make sure you are alright with that) before you start and not make a quick decision (possibly based on some guilt) about donating when you are told that you are a match for someone.

No way (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40796181)

No way. Circumcision and not using condoms is the way to be HIV free. I heard a priest say so.

Re:No way (1)

fredgiblet (1063752) | about 2 years ago | (#40796325)

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:No way (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40796555)

There have been many studies showing this, however many of them leave out the part that this is largely due to overall poor hygiene in rural africa. If you live in the west like most slashdotters, or any other first world country, you have access to much much better tools to keep up personal hygiene (showers and flushing toilets come to mind). In that position circumcision has no real medical benefits and doesn't appear to reduce the chance of getting hit by HIV.

Thats it. I am selling my bone marrow. (1)

forextor (2655585) | about 2 years ago | (#40796431)

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. (1)

mattack2 (1165421) | about 2 years ago | (#40797101)

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 [nbcnews.com]

Berlin patient (1)

tsotha (720379) | about 2 years ago | (#40796769)

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 [npr.org] "Berlin Patient" Timothy Ray Brown may not actually be cured of HIV. They just don't know for sure.

Unlucky? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40797569)

In other news, millions of smokers were unlucky enough to get lung cancer. Film at eleven.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...