Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Medicine Science

Second Person Cured of HIV Is Still Free of Active Virus Two Years On (cnn.com) 54

Posted by BeauHD from the two-years-and-counting dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from CNN: The second person ever to be cured of HIV is still free of active virus more than two years on, a study published by medical journal The Lancet HIV revealed on Tuesday. Two and a half years ago, Adam Castillejo -- previously identified as the "London patient" -- finished HIV antiretroviral therapy. He underwent a stem cell transplant to treat lymphoma and his donor carried a mutation known as CCR5-delta 32, which made him resistant to HIV. Researchers said that in treating his lymphoma, they believe Castillejo, now 40, was cured of HIV.

"Our findings show that the success of stem cell transplantation as a cure for HIV, first reported nine years ago in the Berlin patient, can be replicated," said Ravindra Gupta, lead author of the study and a professor in University of Cambridge's clinical microbiology department. Unlike the Berlin patient -- identified later as Timothy Ray Brown -- Castillejo underwent only one stem-cell transplantation instead of two and did not have radiotherapy to his entire body as part of his treatment. Castillejo represents a step toward a less intensive treatment approach, the authors said. Still, given the invasive nature of the experimental treatment, the authors caution its widespread use.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Second Person Cured of HIV Is Still Free of Active Virus Two Years On More

Second Person Cured of HIV Is Still Free of Active Virus Two Years On

Comments Filter:

  • "Cured"? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Chas ( 5144 ) on Tuesday March 10, 2020 @11:14PM (#59817062) Homepage Journal

    Uh. Yes. I understand having the virus suppressed to the point where, even though it IS present in the body, it's completely dormant.

    And this is fucking AWESOME and admirable!

    But the only way we know the infection doesn't go active again is continued testing.

    If you have to spend the rest of your life being tested just to make sure you've not gone active again, YOU ARE NOT CURED!

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by sjames ( 1099 )

      The testing is to make sure he really is cured, though it seems that he is. The uncertainty comes from him being the 2nd person ever to show this result ever. If we had a test that could detect latent viral loads, the repeated testing would be unnecessary, but we don't.

    • Re:"Cured"? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Kokuyo ( 549451 ) on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @02:25AM (#59817284) Journal

      It's the first patient, so of course he'll get tested out the wazoo.

      After they treated the first few dozen people and all of them remain inactive for months and years, then we will dial back the testing.

      Being cured is a matter of definition. Does the patient feel great without having to take medication? Then he's cured.

      After all, just because you're going to have a endoscope shoved up your bum regularly after you're forty doesn't mean you have colon cancer either.

      • It's the first patient, so of course he'll get tested out the wazoo.

        Can't they just do blood tests, or something?

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by nagora ( 177841 )

      If you have to spend the rest of your life being tested just to make sure you've not gone active again, YOU ARE NOT CURED!

      No, it means that there is some concern about the accuracy of the test. It has nothing to do with whether you are cured or not.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Chas ( 5144 )

        Bullshit.

        The testing is to measure viral load and any activity in said load.

        It's like chronic herpes.

        Sure, they might be "safe" today. But "safe today" isn't "cured". Any more than Valtrex or acyclovir are cures for herpes.

    • Re: "Cured"? (Score:4, Informative)

      by backslashdot ( 95548 ) on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @05:36AM (#59817504)

      Cured means not needing treatment ever again. The continuous testing is because scientists are not sure he is cured. If you arenâ(TM)t sure whether you have chicken pox, does that mean you have it? I mean by your definition being uncertain is the same as actually having it.

      • And yet even when you are "cured" of chicken pox, you are able to get shingles for the rest of your life as a carrier of a dormant virus. When can you ever be cured of anything?

    • I think you don't understand
      This is not about suppresing the virus with medication, to the point where no viruses are in the blood. That would be the common route.
      This is about two cases where the immune system cells, in which the virus is staying as a reservoir, have been all killed and replaced by cells of someone else who is immune to AIDS.

    • He's one of the first people who ever got this treatment. How would they know he's cured or not without follow-up tests? They test you for cancer in follow-up tests, after you've been cured, as well.

  • Looks like televangelists need to find a new curse (Score:4, Interesting)

    by hyades1 ( 1149581 ) <hyades1@hotmail.com> on Tuesday March 10, 2020 @11:19PM (#59817072)

    Remember all those preachers telling us AIDS was god's punishment for immoral behaviour? I guess either the old boy decided he'd slaughtered enough gays and addicts to make his point, or once again science has triumphed over superstition.

    • Now He's going after old people. Maybe He's angry about all the climate denial.

      • You were planning by default on living forever?

        • You were planning by default on living forever?

          Err, well, if possible, yes.....

          I mean, isn't that the ultimate goal?

        • You were planning by default on living forever?

          There are a lot of people today that assume they will. That's why they have mid 40's people trying to have children.

          This way a 45 year old woman having a child will be 66 when the child becomes an adult. Then assuming the fem child does the same, She'll get her first grandchild at the age of 111. Then at the tender age of 156, she can become a great Grandma. Ahh, the cycle of life.

          • Yes, same basic fallacious equivocation as "survival of the species" or "survival of humanity".

            All that ultimately means is that there's at least one member of our abstract set alive at a given time.

            0% of actual people living today will be in that set, in a physical sense. Making that future bet only makes sense if one thinks there's more than "a physical sense".

    • Whereas, from a non-religious standpoint, it is punishment for being stupid and careless.

      Or maybe both are saying the same thing, if you choose to look at it objectively.

      "But I want my dick to feel good" is not sufficient justification for spreading a pandemic that has killed 32 million people, and that applies whether you are gay or straight.

      • Whereas, from a non-religious standpoint, it is punishment for being stupid and careless.

        How about those people who had to have blood transfusions before HIV testing was started in 1985? Or the occasional person who gets it through a transfusion today, despite testing? Or the kids who are exposed at birth or through breastfeeding. Yep, what a bunch of careless idiots.

        • Whataboutismif?

          I'm speaking in general, because that's what is pertinent as a general statement.

          Ethics is heuristic in nature.

          Similarly, don't drive twice the posted speed limit, even if people die in car crashes in other ways.

      • Whereas, from a non-religious standpoint, it is punishment for being stupid and careless.

        First off, you're going to have to demonstrate that sex is stupid and careless.

        Or maybe both are saying the same thing, if you choose to look at it objectively.

        Bloody hell, and full stop. The same people who claim that their angry desert God is involved to the point that he purposefully creates a virus like AIDS to cause them to die, are the same people that claim that their god sends hurricanes to punish those who dare to defy him.

        And ignore the part where most of the hurricanes hit places where the angry desert god holds sway.

        People is a gonna engage in sex. The same as they are

        • First off, you're going to have to demonstrate that sex is stupid and careless.

          No, I'm not. "Sex" per se is not the issue at hand. Promiscuous sex is.

          The rest is just repeating this premise. You are slippery-sloping this all the way to sex all the time, under any circumstances.

          Sure, this a common, animal level of consciousness. Being an animal is not mandatory.

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by DarkOx ( 621550 )

      Nothing has changed really. God rarely punishes wicked directly in their moral lives. He has already levied his ultimate punishment on us all forcing us to live in a fallen world. Things like aids are exactly the sort of disorder that is the consequence of original sin.

      The world is full of such disorder and nobody however righteous is necessarily exempt from suffering as a result. Even Christ endured trials before his ultimate sacrifice.

      God has however given us his law because he loves us and following it

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by cusco ( 717999 )

        So which of the gods do we give credit to for AIDS? Jehovah? Gitchigumee? Shiva? Coyote? Osiris? Inti? Baal? Ahura Mazda?

        Show me that your silly sky fairy is any more real than the others and maybe someone will pay attention to your bleating, but for now you're just another sheep.

    • Given that science has taken about four decades to get to the point where an actual cure is on the horizon, the vast majority of victims would have been better off placing their faith in God rather than in science; for most of them, this development is still too little, too late. Those who believed they could lead an immoral lifestyle because science would find a cure Real Soon Now(tm) were unfortunately mistaken. It continues to amaze me that people who would wash their hands religiously to avoid someth

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by cusco ( 717999 )

        better off placing their faith in God rather than in science

        WTF? Have you **EVER** seen someone pray away a disease? No, you haven't (sorry, but Benny Hinn's "cures" have been exposed as frauds repeatedly). And who is it that opposes condom use, is it the religious or the scientists/physicians? My uncle and his partner have been enthusiastically participating in "an immoral lifestyle" for over 60 years, because they listened to the science and followed the recommended precautions they're still disease-free to this day.

        admonishments against said behavior have also been found in the Bible and promulgated by religion.

        So remind me what diseases are caused by mas

  • If you have choice between this and antivirals (Score:5, Interesting)

    by NotSoHeavyD3 ( 1400425 ) on Tuesday March 10, 2020 @11:43PM (#59817104) Journal
    Pick the antivirals. A bone marrow transplant, which is what this is or to be specific an allograph, is one of the most dangerous medical procedures you can go through and kills a significant portion of people who get one. The drugs are much safer.

    • Re:If you have choice between this and antivirals (Score:5, Informative)

      by sjames ( 1099 ) on Wednesday March 11, 2020 @12:57AM (#59817198) Homepage Journal

      The transplant was for leukemia. It's just that since he needed the marrow anyway, there was no reason not to give him marrow carrying the AIDS resistance mutation to cure that as a nice side effect of the treatment he needed anyway.

      Much like people with type 1 diabetes who need an organ transplant for other reasons often get a pancreas while they're at it since they will have to take anti-rejection drugs anyway.

    • Sure, but he was there anyway.

      What is interesting about this treatment isn't that we can go around doing bone marrow transplants. I'm sure there would be a shortage of willing donors because it's an unpleasant experience to donate.

      The interesting part is that some part of the donor marrow confers an immunity to the HIV and basically sends it dormant or cures it. The article says that the patient didn't undergo radiotherapy first. I always (mis?)understood that was to kill his bone marrow/immune system prior

      • Yes it'll be interesting to see follow up research, presumably the new killer T-cells killed off the old, sick T-cells.

  • Pretty sure he was before either of these two...

Slashdot Top Deals

You know you've landed gear-up when it takes full power to taxi.

Close