5th Person Confirmed To Be Cured of HIV 72
Researchers are announcing that a 53-year-old man in Germany has been cured of HIV. From a report: Referred to as "the Dusseldorf patient" to protect his privacy, researchers said he is the fifth confirmed case of an HIV cure. Although the details of his successful treatment were first announced at a conference in 2019, researchers could not confirm he had been officially cured at that time. Today, researchers announced the Dusseldorf patient still has no detectable virus in his body, even after stopping his HIV medication four years ago. "It's really cure, and not just, you know, long term remission," said Dr. Bjorn-Erik Ole Jensen, who presented details of the case in a new publication in "Nature Medicine."
"This obviously positive symbol makes hope, but there's a lot of work to do," Jensen said. For most people, HIV is a lifelong infection, and the virus is never fully eradicated. Thanks to modern medication, people with HIV can live long and healthy lives. The Dusseldorf patient joins a small group of people who have been cured under extreme circumstances after a stem cell transplant, typically only performed in cancer patients who don't have any other options. A stem cell transplant is a high-risk procedure that effectively replaces a person's immune system. The primary goal is to cure someone's cancer, but the procedure has also led to an HIV cure in a handful of cases.
"This obviously positive symbol makes hope, but there's a lot of work to do," Jensen said. For most people, HIV is a lifelong infection, and the virus is never fully eradicated. Thanks to modern medication, people with HIV can live long and healthy lives. The Dusseldorf patient joins a small group of people who have been cured under extreme circumstances after a stem cell transplant, typically only performed in cancer patients who don't have any other options. A stem cell transplant is a high-risk procedure that effectively replaces a person's immune system. The primary goal is to cure someone's cancer, but the procedure has also led to an HIV cure in a handful of cases.
Re: (Score:1)
Is that like "I remember scientists saying we were heading into the next ice age" acting like that was the generally accepted position of science while it's mostly just some cherry-picking that sensationalist media did?
I guess it depends on if the person making the observation is part of the problem or part of the solution? Sensationalism is about spreading fear, doubt....
Re:sure it was not possible.... (Score:4, Insightful)
There was never a reasonable possibility that HIV would eradicate humanity. It can kill a lot of people, but given it's limited means of spreading, it could definitely have been handled by dividing people into groups of around 100, and forbidding physical interactions between them. That would, of course, have been a rather extreme solution, but it was a possible one that was obviously possible from the beginning, even if it had a 17 year latency and there wasn't any good test to detect it.
Re: (Score:2)
it could definitely have been handled by dividing people into groups of around 100, and forbidding physical interactions between them
Kind of a weird and arbitrary number, but also senseless since it depends on people obeying an unprecedented mandate.
Re: sure it was not possible.... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Wow, somebody tell the Doctor to take his TARDIS back to the 1300 and tell those Mediterranean cities to give up on what had been working for them for some decades ; it won't work, because some dude on Slashdot won't believe it 7 centuries from now.
This is just quarantine, but done multiple times per population, kind of in the same way that people on the second ship to arrive at a port are protected by quarantine rules from catching any disease in
Re:sure it was not possible.... (Score:4)
There are many humans who voluntarily (or, err, involuntarily) have only one partner for life. There is a high probability that many of them will partner up with each other naturally, therefore the risk of HIV eliminating humans is minimal (as long as it doesn't do something shitty like become airborne).
Re: sure it was not possible.... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Here's a scenario: If the mutation costs something ( which it probably would ) then it's better to remain unable to affect 1% of the population (which you can't spread in easily because they are sparse) and remain more able to affect the majority of the population. So unless most people have the resistance there's no evolutionary pressure to mutate. Start giving everyone that resistance ( or worse something akin to it but less effective ) and you create pressure to mutate around the issue.
Antiquity doesn
Re: sure it was not possible.... (Score:4)
How do you think evolution works? It isn't a rational process. The virii don't hold a conference, analyze their situation, and determine their next genetic change. Neither is some "pressure" going to guarantee a change; such a thing might not even be possible. The population could just as easily die out, as countless extinct species could tell you if they could.
If anything, we've proven that we can eradicate disease. All it takes is the will to do so.
Re: (Score:2)
Only one disease has been wiped out. That is Smallpox. Most diseases persist despite our best efforts. Many threaten to return due to resistance to the methods used to control them.
Nobody said there was a conference among viruses to decide the best change to make ( although people might do that and augment a virus - especially if they were Phizer trying to predict the next evolutionary step of Covid so as to construct the vaccine ahead of it's evolution which they actually discussed according to Project V
Re: (Score:2)
Most diseases persist despite our best efforts.
LOL! No. They persist because 1) we're not willing to make eradication a global effort and 2) a growing number of pro-disease anti-vax morons.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, monogamy was a social response to various prior sexually transmitted diseases. It was pretty effective, but a long way from perfect, as lots of people find monogamy to confining. I'm not sure how well serial monogamy would work, but I've got pretty strong suspicions that it would be a lot less effective.
Re: (Score:2)
We were and we are. And that is still a generally accepted position of science. You just never bothered to look at the timeline. The only thing that has changed in the past 50 years is our understanding that global warming has pushed the due date for the next ice age back by about 50000 years.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, easy. "It's in your imagination." There, done.
Re: (Score:1)
yes, this is 100% true, but also flamebait. the duality of /. progressives.
covid broke the collective brains of the hivemind, it's amazing how quickly it happened, and how vitriolic it becomes when questioned.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd guess, from the summary, that one thing they had in common was a cancer that was really difficult to treat.
This doesn't sound like a treatment that anyone would chose unless they were really desperate, and it also sounds extremely expensive.
Re: (Score:3)
Of course, it could be both something genetic and pure luck.
That something is encoded in ones genes does not generally mean that an outcome is guaranteed, just that it is more likely. Most heritable traits are polygenic - controlled by multiple, or even many, genes, and you need to get a number of those individual genes (which is not far from a random distribution) before you get the trait.
With five cured people fro
I just hope (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
I highly doubt he will. He's 53, so from an older generation that got HIV in an era when it wasnt as well understood how to avoid getting it and before PREP. But by now. he'd understand it *very* well. HIV is a disease that preys on the ignorant. That aint this guy.
After living under a potential death sentence for most of his adult life, I highly doubt he's in a hurry to get back under that dark cloud.
Re: (Score:2)
... lost dozens of their friends (if not lovers) to AIDS. That sort of thing kind-of sticks in the memory. Hell, I lost at least 6 friends, and I only had social contact with the gay scene in the 80s and 90s. Still got 3 friends on antiretrovirals.
Even with combined therapies, my several friends consider it a death sentence. They just don't know when it's going to become active. Life, as the say
Scorched Earth (Score:4, Interesting)
Logically, this makes sense to me.
They developed "good enough" antivirals that HIV becomes undetectable. However, if you go off said meds, it eventually comes back, because HIV is *VERY* good at hiding within your immune T-Cells.
So you still take the meds until you're undetectable... then they nuke your entire immune system as scorched earth to ensure they got it all... then stick in a new immune system.
Why *WOULDN'T* this work?
Re: (Score:2)
Replacing your immune system is pretty drastic, but potentially useful for treating a lot of auto-immune conditions too. Hopefully the treatment gets less drastic over time.
Re: (Score:2)
Because we don't know ALL the places in the body where the virus can hide, before coming out to re-infect the patient.
Actually, we probably don't need to know all the places it can hide. Just the places where it has a 50% chance of coming out per century.
If we extend the human life span, we might need to extend that to tissues where it has a 10% chance of coming out per century.
It's not a scaleable solution. There are a lot of tissues in the human body - and even more cell types.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You don't need to 100% nuke the immune system, 99% might be good enough. I'm not even sure we can 100% nuke the immune system unless you compromise on what you mean by 100%, nuke, and immune system. The place this whole thing can go wonky is the expectation that a mutated CCR5 receptor is good enough to block the virus from entering immune cells. The fact is that some strains of the virus, under evolutionary pressure, can enter cells via CXCR-4 instead.. so the hope is that CXCR-4 is weaker enough of an ent
An Obvious Cure! (Score:1)
What is actually obvious. (Score:2, Interesting)
Given that your complaints are now decades old, you should really start to understand and accept what is actually obvious; The Disease of Greed that has infected mankind for thousands of years. This is why we have perpetual treatments instead of cures. Even when a "breakthrough" like this is proven viable, it won't be accepted by your insurance for the next decade or two. For the same greedy reason.
Greed cares about perpetual treatments and the perpetual revenue streams it creates. You assume creating
Re: (Score:2)
Such as for smallpox and reinderpest? Might want to include polio in there as well. Think of the all the the money these companies have lost by wiping out the above three afflictions.
But then, you being the most prominent scientist on the planet, why haven't you come up with cures for anything? Wouldn't that show them how it's done?
Re: (Score:2)
This is why we have perpetual treatments instead of cures. Such as for smallpox and reinderpest? Might want to include polio in there as well. Think of the all the the money these companies have lost by wiping out the above three afflictions.
It took 20 years to develop a polio vaccine that still has not eradicated it from the planet. All those companies made plenty of money, and still do. If polio took 20 years, imagine how long Greed will insist development continues with COVID vaccines regardless of efficacy.
You don't tack on $9 trillion in debt by calling the headless guy a mere decapitation. You get to $9 trillion in debt by ensuring the headless guy tests positive for COVID to capture maximum financial reimbursement from Government coffe
Re: (Score:2)
This is why we have perpetual treatments instead of cures. Even when a "breakthrough" like this is proven viable, it won't be accepted by your insurance for the next decade or two.
We have very different definitions of "viable". Immune system replacement involves three to four weeks of hospitalization. Assuming the treatment is comparable in cost to similar treatments for leukemia, the one-year cost, including follow-ups, additional treatment when things go wrong, etc. is on the order of $352,885 to $457,078 [nih.gov].
It is easy to understand why insurance companies would be wary of paying for a cure that approaches half a million dollars rather than spending O($2k) per month for antiretrovir
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, it's an obvious cure, but it's also INCREDIBLY risky. They have to completely 100% kill off every trace of your immune system, then implant someone else's into you. Then it takes time for the new immune system to ramp up and be able to protect you.
You've got a significant window there where you have no immune system at all. If anyone so much as sneezes near you then, you probably die.
And of course you need to find another person who's compatible enough with you for a transfer to work. And the process
Re: (Score:2)
The place this whole thing can go wonky is the expectation that a mutated CCR5 receptor is good enough to block the virus from entering immune cells. The fact is that some strains of the virus, under evolutionary pressure, can enter cells via CXCR-4 instead.. so the hope is that CXCR-4 is weaker enough of an entry point than CCR5 that the immune system can fight back against the virus more efficiently than the virus can enter the immune cells and weaken the immune system. Unlike CCR5, CXCR-4 might actually
Somebody needs to tell fundamentalist preachers (Score:2, Funny)
It would seem that god isn't making punishments like he used to.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
God's gone woke, we need a new one,
Re: (Score:1)
God's gone woke, we need a new one,
Vote DeSatan in 2024
Re: (Score:2)
False, you disgusting right-wing troll.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course there would. People like you would still be fucking monkeys and pigs, and the bible doesn't say anything about that.
Not just a transplant (Score:4, Insightful)
The key to the cure isn't the transplant as much as the transplant donor, FTA:
All four of these patients had undergone stem cell transplants for their blood cancer treatment. Their donors also had the same HIV-resistant mutation that deletes a protein called CCR5, which HIV normally uses to enter the cell. Only 1% of the total population carries this genetic mutation that makes them resistant to HIV.
Presumably the donor in this case had the same mutation.
Exciting but almost zero (Score:3)
It's exciting that this is possible. But 5 out of about 80 million in history is not a great recovery rate. It does bring up a lot of questions like why are so few cased cured, and what are the mechanism(s) of cures and remissions?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It does bring up a lot of questions like why are so few cased cured
Because we don't have a time machine, and we can't use modern medical innovation to go back in time and erase the number you are comparing it against?
Seriously between you and the guy at the top who doesn't understand why scientists said we are heading towards an ice age, it seems like the only people on Slashdot this morning do not understand the concept of time at all.
Re: (Score:2)
I understand time, but I didn't have the numbers to state how many HIV cases occurred in the last four years. I'm guessing it's several orders of magnitude more than 5. I get it, numbers are hard. My recommendation to you is to try harder.
Re: (Score:1)
Seriously dude? This shit is still going on? shit that you can disprove with google [wikidoc.org] so easily? Are you saying that we can't see abnormal cells under a microscope when people are sick, see that viral particles are exuding from said cells, and isolate them? We can. We do.
"Cure?" (Score:2)
Get back to me when they can use CRISPR to add the HIV immunity DNA to the person's own cells without his body rejecting them. That would be a real cure.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
cures are bad for business (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)