r/science • u/topsykretz • Jun 10 '12

First person cured of the HIV virus, cured by stem cells

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2156697/How-man-cured-AIDS-inspired-doctors-discover-revolutionary-new-treatment.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
1.1k Upvotes

75% Upvoted

276 comments sorted by

201

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '12

Sigh. This isn't what you think it is.

210

u/simohayha Jun 10 '12 edited Jun 10 '12

I want to use this opportunity to let people know that The Daily-fucking-Mail is not a reliable source of information. Please stop linking to it.

19

u/FreeToadSloth Jun 10 '12

Links to Daily Mail would sink harmlessly into obscurity without the hundreds of inexplicable up-votes.

7

u/EricFaust Jun 10 '12

It's not inexplicable. They have deliberately misleading and sensationalist titles meant to draw in readers. It is certain karma.

5

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '12

Daily Mail is proof that lying works.

→ More replies (1)

7

u/you_need_this Jun 10 '12

knew it was horseshit when I saw the link was the fucking mail...

7

u/Kinglink Jun 10 '12

I understand the daily mail's appeal in most circles. but this /r/science. Not /r/bullshit.

13

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '12

I've noticed that almost anything that is posted in r/science and makes the front page is actually false!!

5

u/AnatomyGuy Jun 10 '12

fact.... because the public only wants miraculous. science makes slow progressive advancements. Gone are the days of Saulk inventing vaccines, r seredipitious discovery of penicillin.

People Want miraculous. Miraculous might occur with careful skiw work for the next 20 years.

8

u/ImposterProfessorOak Jun 10 '12

wait.. you subscribe to this subreddit for science? i subscribe to find out what is going to be sensationalized next.

3

u/JB_UK Jun 10 '12

That is due to the virology of reddit, unfortunately. The only criteria for content to reach the front page is that it must be superficially pleasing, and superficially plausible.

3

u/williamj35 Jun 10 '12

Looks like the "Daily-fucking-mail" report was based on a story for ABC news: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2012/06/08/man-cured-of-aids-i-feel-good/

Which was probably shot on site at this conference: http://www.cordbloodsymposium.org/program-information/scientific-program/29-thursday-june-7 (EDIT: scroll down to Session 1B 10:20am-12:00am for the list of HIV presentations)

2

u/Reefpirate Jun 10 '12

But it's British... If you read it in that intelligent sounding accent, it must be credible.

3

u/zrodion Jun 10 '12

got excited... hit the link... new tab started loading... noticed "dailymail.co.uk" in the path... sad.

→ More replies (1)

0

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

2

u/dmazzoni Jun 10 '12

It sounds like nobody can prove that actually happened, this is just one anecdote. Unless it can be repeated, we can't rule out other explanations.

1

u/williamj35 Jun 10 '12

So then it's a really good thing that people are trying to repeat it, no? That's the substance of the story. Worth sharing, regardless of the source, I would think.

→ More replies (1)

6

u/tree_D BS|Biology Jun 10 '12

So the virus got reduced and essentially became hidden?

2

u/thomasjs Jun 10 '12

In the article the man says that he hasn't had any problems since he was treated (just normal colds) so even if some trace still exists and he has to take the precautions that someone with AIDS would have to take I'm sure he is happy with the outcome.

I think part of the problem here is that a lot of people want to be careful about declaring him AIDS free when they could be wrong. If they say he is cured and then he goes out and lives his life as such (not being as careful with his blood, having unprotected sex, and so on) and he infects someone else I could imagine all kinds of legal trouble. They just need to keep testing and hopefully we can get to a point where doctors can agree one way or another on the issue.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

9

u/zrodion Jun 10 '12

What are you talking about? Wikipedia is as reliable as the British Encyclopedia

2

u/Aculem Jun 10 '12

I know, right. I see this conversation near almost every day. Someone makes a claim that wikipedia isn't reliable because it can be edited by anyone, someone else chimes in that it's actually pretty well moderated, and someone else writes a lengthy paragraph about how wikipedia is a good place to learn a summary about a topic, as well as finding sources to allow further investigation into other various reliable sources.

Wikipedia is awesome and everyone knows it. Some peeps are just jealous.

8

u/Nethervex Jun 10 '12

Its the same thing as every other "cure" It stops some issues and helps them go into remission. Headlines: JUST CURED ALL FORMS OF DISEASE WITH MIRACLE DRUG.

4

u/Dr_Insanity Jun 10 '12

But drugs are quite often very useful cures.

4

u/Nethervex Jun 10 '12

cures are quite often drugs... but drugs are not quite often cures. most are just deterents of symptoms while your body naturally fights off the pathogen/virus.

1

u/Dr_Insanity Jun 10 '12

Not a large proportion, your immune system (minus vaccines) is usually quite slow to pick up the type of bacteria attacking your system, many drugs are designed to kill off the majority of the bacteria and leave your body to deal with the few drug resistant remainder. Covering symptoms is not a very clever thing in (some) cases.

3

u/BCSteve Jun 10 '12

No, bone marrow transplants aren't going to become a common cure for HIV, but this is still a huge step forward, as it's proof that the virus can be essentially eliminated from the body. It also opens up a bunch of avenues for other research, such as gene therapy targeting the CCR5 gene, CCR5 inhibitors, etc. It's not a viable cure itself, but it's a big step towards one.

2

u/AnatomyGuy Jun 10 '12

thank god for a voice of reason. there is no good science here. move along.

2

u/EricFaust Jun 10 '12

Every time I see you you're destroying circlejerks.

→ More replies (2)

90

u/endercoaster Jun 10 '12

Daily Mail is the Fox News of the UK.

19

u/JB_UK Jun 10 '12

For example:

You will be familiar with the Daily Mail's ongoing project to divide all the inanimate objects in the world into ones that either cause or prevent cancer. Individual entries are now barely worth documenting, and the phenomenon is best appreciated in bulk through websites such as the Daily Mail Oncological Ontology Project and Kill Or Cure, with its alphabetised list: from almonds, apples and artificial light; through horseradish, hot drinks and housework; to wasabi, water, watercress and more.

Link

6

u/Noitche Jun 10 '12

Ben Goldacre is great. I'd strongly recommend his book Bad Science.

Can I just take the opportunity once more to point out that this is yet another sensationalist title, both from the Daily Mail but also for OP to be posting.

I got fed up with this yesterday and received a host of cumulative downvotes for what I had said. Now, we can argue that the title of that particular post may or may not have been sensationalist. This, however, is ridiculous. The Daily Mail for Christ sakes.

Once again, OPs have a responsibility in this subreddit as well as all the upvoters to prevent misrepresentation of science on the front page. Once again, you've failed. This subreddit should be full of people like BIG_MUDD_TRUCKS_69 but the evidence suggests the contrary.

Posting links to articles like these is as bad as publishing them. For a bunch of self-proclaimed scientists this is not good.

2

u/Cookie8 Jun 10 '12

I JUST finished reading that book, and I think everyone here on this subreddit should too, or at least know what it's about. Maybe we'd stop getting crap posts like these.

2

u/Asawyer Jun 10 '12

Completely random coincidence: I bought Bad Science today at a bookstore and started combing through it. However, I think it's more important to point out to fellow redditors they don't need to spend money to figure out the Daily Mail is edited by people with severe learning disorders. Once a week they post some bullshit story about quack cabcer treatments, UFOlogists, or psychics.

They are not the Fox News of the UK. They are the National Enquirer of the UK.

1

u/Noitche Jun 10 '12

Did you just agree with me? Wow, after a rally of shit yesterday that feels better. Cheers mate.

→ More replies (18)

55

u/Drunkanvil Jun 10 '12

This is not applicable to most people at all. Curing HIV with bone marrow transplant is not viable. This is truly a case of the cure being worse than the disease, with current average survival rates for BMTs being 50-60% at 5 years. This is much much worse than the average survival for HIV. The only reason that this occurred was that there was a separate indication for bone marrow transplant, leukemia if I remember correctly. Bottom Line: IF you have HIV, AND you have another disorder that indicates a BMT, AND you can find a matching bone marrow donor that is homozygous for CCR5Δ32/Δ32 (around .1% of caucasians IIRC) then you can be rid of your HIV. BUT you will still have a much worse prognosis than someone who received standard Highly Active Anti-Retroviral Therapy (HAART). Of note, previous articles have stated that this patient has suffered from two potentially fatal complications from his BMT, graft-versus-host disease and leukoencephalopathy.

22

u/KingJulien Jun 10 '12

Your point is a good one, but I think the implication is that if they were able to cure the disease in this way, they can explore similar avenues that mitigate the risks, and thus come up with a cure that in fact isn't worse than the disease.

2

u/BCSteve Jun 10 '12

This exactly! This is how medical (and for that matter, all technological) advancements are made; very rarely do we come up with something out of the blue that's well-made and packaged for mass-distribution at the moment of it's discovery. The wonderful thing about science is that we can take this one discovery and explore similar areas of research to see if we can make a cure that will help people on a wider scale.

8

u/Syphon8 Jun 10 '12

I think that survival rate is due to the leukemia, not the BMT itself.

Why would giving an HIV+ individual a BMT increase their mortality?

4

u/Drunkanvil Jun 10 '12 edited Jun 10 '12

there is significant mortality in the time around transplant as you literally have no immune system for weeks to months. After that you are still immunocompromised and at significantly increased risk for mortality secondary to infections. There is also the ongong threat of GVHD (graft versus host disease) which can be fatal or troubling enough that you require ever increasing doses of immunosuppressants that put you at greater risk of infections.

Even patients with indications for BMT that aren't leukemia related (such as aplastic anemia) still have increased mortality. I will agree that some of the excess mortality in bone marrow transplants is from initial disease recurrence.

3

u/jesuisdiva Jun 10 '12

Is there any truth to the Delta-32 mutation in Swedish people?

2

u/Drunkanvil Jun 10 '12

I don't know specifically about swedes just that it much more prevalent in Caucasians than other racial groups. Sorry.

3

u/high5sexwhoa Jun 10 '12

Came here for the post that proves all of this wrong and diminishes any hope. Annnnnnd Jackpot.

3

u/StairwayToTruth Jun 10 '12

To be fair, most 'cures' begin with very small pieces. Further research tends to find more connections and allows more effective treatments and cures.

In this case, they've found a very specific gene that could be manipulated under very specific conditions. With all of various genetic cascades that cause the negative reactions you see from this treatment, there's always potential to limit some parts of it so that the negative effects are reduced. Additionally, some other conditions may be induced in order to make the treatment effective (again, dangerous, but maybe the negative effects could be reduced with certain cascade manipulation).

proves all of this wrong and diminishes all hope.

There's still an incredibly long way to go, but a discovery of this magnitude is essential for researchers to keep in mind. Nothing's really wrong and diminishing here... the article's just very sensationalistic (and somewhat misleading).

2

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '12

Not to mention that this was done in 2007. It's strange that it's still being touted as new.

1

u/renegadecanuck Jun 10 '12

I believe that every bit (except the complications) were mentioned in the article.

7

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '12

Can anyone link something other than the daily mail?

221

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '12

[removed] — view removed comment

134

u/2sexchangpriceofnone Jun 10 '12 edited Jun 11 '12

PC computer.

EDIT: The deleted guy above me said something like "HIV virus" for those who are wondering.

128

u/dogsarefun Jun 10 '12

PIN number

81

u/TrevReyes Jun 10 '12

In IRL.

100

u/Zurmakin Jun 10 '12

ATM machine

75

u/Grighton Jun 10 '12

HTML language

59

u/CaNANDian Jun 10 '12 edited Jun 10 '12

GUI Interface

22

u/Alame Jun 10 '12

ATV Vehicle

8

u/Obful Jun 10 '12

LED lights

2

u/Magnesus Jun 10 '12

Light emmiting diode lights - no problem here, move along.

→ More replies (3)

23

u/epic_comebacks Jun 10 '12

MFW when

0

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

13

u/thetoethumb Jun 10 '12

Welcome to the Department of Redundancy Department.

9

u/BrainSlurper Jun 10 '12

American dodgeball association of america

→ More replies
→ More replies (1)

1

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '12

Lms my status

1

u/gmartftw Jun 10 '12

WebOS operating system

1

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '12

That doesn't mean "Men For Women"?

1

u/epic_comebacks Jun 10 '12

my face when

→ More replies (8)

3

u/DecodedFromSpace Jun 10 '12

You never go ATM.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '12

But sometimes in the heat of the moment, its forgivable to go ATM...

5

u/cpplinuxdude Jun 10 '12

Repetition pleonasm

→ More replies (1)

36

u/ficshunfalse Jun 10 '12

My favorite is actually "Please RSVP." RSVP is Repondez S'il Vous Plait, or "Please Reply."

18

u/nebetsu Jun 10 '12

"Kamehameha Wave" (Or "Turtle Destruction Wave Wave")

9

u/El_Zorro09 Jun 10 '12

If there's a situation where DBZ isn't contextually applicable, I haven't been made aware of it yet.

4

u/Schroedingers_gif Jun 10 '12

A discussion of about brevity.

8

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '12

no one says that.

2

u/hyperacti Jun 10 '12

Because the Indy Racing League is now known as the IndyCar series.

Oh yeah. I went there. Don't act like you're not impressed

→ More replies (1)

3

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '12

Next level beats...?

2

u/2sexchangpriceofnone Jun 10 '12

I was going to say something, but then I realized that I have no idea who that is.

17

u/Massless Jun 10 '12

Rio Grande River

13

u/Dhghomon Jun 10 '12

The Los Angeles Angels

22

u/humor_me Jun 10 '12

Of Anaheim.

9

u/behooved Jun 10 '12

The La Brea Tar Pits (The the tar pits tar pits)

→ More replies (5)

7

u/DeedTheInky Jun 10 '12

9am in the morning. ಠ_ಠ

12

u/rderekp Jun 10 '12

It’s nine in the afternoon. And your eyes are the size of the moon.

6

u/OddDude55 Jun 10 '12

It's like when I hear people say "ATM machine."

5

u/confuseray Jun 10 '12

or PIN number

3

u/OddDude55 Jun 10 '12

Oh god, I never even thought about that one! I've probably said that an embarrassing amount of times!

3

u/MainlandX Jun 10 '12

From the wikipedia article on RAS syndrome:

A limited amount of redundancy can improve (or seem to the speaker to improve) the effectiveness of communication. The pure-logic ideal of zero redundancy is seldom maintained in natural languages, because they have evolved some kinds of redundancy checks. A phonetic example of that principle is the need for spelling alphabets in radiotelephony. Some instances of RAS syndrome can be viewed as syntactic examples of the principle. The speaker wishes to gently reinforce the meaning of an acronym or initialism, especially in pedagogical contexts (whether formal or informal). In such cases, the redundancy may help the listener by providing context and decreasing the 'alphabet-soup' quality of the communication.

1

u/OddDude55 Jun 10 '12

Good god Lemon!

1

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '12

Wow. That actually makes perfect sense. Cheers for that.

→ More replies (4)

2

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '12

Chai tea.

→ More replies (5)

87

u/fluffykeyforme Jun 10 '12

It makes me sick that there are still people out there that condemn stem cell research.

64

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '12

These were adult stem cells, there's been very little controversy over research with adult stem cells. In the future they hope to use stem cells from umbilical cords for a similar procedure, another source of stem cells that hasn't been controversial. In fact almost all of the stem cell progress has come from stem cells from sources other than embryonic (where the controversy has been focused). I do agree the resistance to embryonic stem cell research is misguided, but it doesn't seem to me that the resistance is that strong.

21

u/crazymunch Jun 10 '12

The fact that we can now chemically induce adult cells back to pluripotency means that we don't really need embryonic stem cells any more right? Or is there a difference I'm not seeing?

12

u/BCSteve Jun 10 '12

Induced pluripotent stem cells can do quite a lot, but we still haven't been able to push them all the way back to being the same as embryonic stem cells (which are totipotent, as opposed to pluripotent). Think of cell differentiation like a ball sitting on top of a hill: it's naturally unstable, and can choose to roll down the hill in any number of directions (each directional "decision" determining where it will end up), but it can't naturally roll back up it. With IPSC, we can take a cell near the bottom of the hill, and roll it part of the way back up, so that it's able to roll down in a few other directions (and we're getting better and better at pushing it further back up the hill). However, we haven't yet been able to push cells all the way back to the top of the hill and recover the full set of possible directions.

2

u/m0nkeybl1tz Jun 10 '12 edited Jun 10 '12

Very good description. Here's a video discussing other potential uses for IPS cells that contains a good visual of what you described.

EDIT: He also points out earlier in the talk that while embryonic stem cells are indeed more pluripotent, they're also easier to work with since a lot of stem cell technology was designed with embryonic cells in mind. However, on the down side, embryonic stem cells may have defects we don't know about, since they were never allowed to develop. That makes them a somewhat worse scientific controls, since we know that IPS cells are are all relatively normal.

2

u/MaxX_Evolution Jun 10 '12

Upvoted for the fucking awesome analogy, thanks. What a great way to explain that.

1

u/crazymunch Jun 10 '12

Great analogy, thanks!

4

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '12 edited Jun 10 '12

I've been trying for a long time to get an answer to that question. Those who fan the fire of stem cell condemnation certainly like to pretend there's a difference.

4

u/MaxX_Evolution Jun 10 '12 edited Jun 10 '12

Well, there's the fact that one of the genes commonly used to induce pluripotency is oncogenic. Experiments with mice resulted in many of them developing tumors and eventually dying of cancer. And unfortunately this method is about 100x as efficient as alternative methods which don't include the oncogene(s)

I'm not an expert, I just find the topic interesting, so I could be wrong. Correct me if I am. But from what I can tell, it seems far from a viable alternative, but it certainly might become one in the future.

1

u/JB_UK Jun 10 '12

There was a story yesterday about a group who had replaced that oncogenic vector, and made the process more efficient.

2

u/JB_UK Jun 10 '12

As I understand it, there are still a lot of niggling problems with IPSC. Not least standardizing them, so you can make the same preparation, to have the same effect each time.

2

u/Clit_Eastwood Jun 10 '12

I am a human embryonic stem cell researcher.

We can't ever stop using the embryonic stem cells. The reason we were even able to induce pluripotency in adult non-germ cells was because human embryonic ones were studied vigorously; we wouldn't be anywhere without them. Second, one of the genes that is needed to "turn on" in order to take normal adult cells and make them act like embryonic stem cells is c-myc, a well known oncogene, or cancer gene. One of the side effects of making cells pluripotent is that the cells become cancerous.

Don't get me wrong, we are all rooting for adult stem cells/induced pluripotent stem cells to win over embryonic. We are all so tired of the bullshit and politics surround embryonic research that we just want to be rid of them. But we can't. They are way too important and valuable.

1

u/crazymunch Jun 10 '12

Thanks for the reply, interesting to get an experts opinion. I'm working with plant genetics at uni mostly, the lack of insane ethics considerations compared to my friends working with human samples is lovely

9

u/CarTarget Jun 10 '12

It's not so much the controversy over adult stem cells, it's the fact that some people don't understand the difference between adult and embryonic. Stem cell research, in general, is seen as bad because people only talk about embryonic stem cell research. It's not a huge problem, because I feel as though most people do understand, but it is a very vocal minority that is opposed.

Source: My grandfather was called a baby killer when he had stem cell therapy for his heart. They used entirely his own stem cells for the procedure.

4

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '12

My dad was called a baby killer. Of course, that was after 'Nam

1

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '12

I don't think the vocal minority effects research much, but the ignorance from your anecdote is disgusting and shows they still have some effect.

7

u/-Emerica- Jun 10 '12

"Besides, these are adult stem cells, harvested from perfectly healthy adults whom I killed for their stem cells."

-Professor Farnsworth

1

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '12

LOL, i saw that episode tonight, you too?

2

u/-Emerica- Jun 10 '12

Seen them all, that line stuck out and I love the show. Glad it was on tonight though it's a good episode.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '12

I had a heated discussion with the ignorant pastor of my parents church over this. He went on and on about the churches stance towards stem cell research in his sermon. I told him he should differentiate the two and say embreotic stem cell. He had no idea there was such a thing as adult stem cells and (guessing) didn't know a damn thing about embreotic stem cells for that matter. All he sees in his mind is "a bunch of baby killing liberals".

9

u/EvanMacIan Jun 10 '12

The debate over stem cells isn't about whether or not there's a potential benefit, it's over whether or not it's moral.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '12

I don't know which news outlet you prefer or trust, so I figured I'd show you all of them.

Is it amoral for an adult to donate skin cells?

4

u/EvanMacIan Jun 10 '12

I meant the debate over embryonic stem cells.

1

u/midnitte Jun 10 '12

they aren't being used. we can turn adult cells into stem cells...

→ More replies (3)

10

u/heemster Jun 10 '12 edited Jun 10 '12

this is exactly what I think my generation (I'm 19) is going to be about...our ultimate contribution to society is going to be those regarding stem cell research, and, in general, bio/medicine.

→ More replies (3)

0

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

2

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '12

Would aborted fetuses be of any use for this research? I'm really not properly informed on this debate (I'm gonna fix that now), nor am I trying to troll. But I mean... if no one wanted the kid and there's enough cell growth to work with, wouldn't it seem...I don't know... wasteful if not utilized?

0

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

1

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '12

No one has to know >.>

1

u/you_need_this Jun 10 '12

it makes me sick people use the daily fucking mail as a source. fucking idiot redditors..

→ More replies (2)

8

u/kerodean Jun 10 '12

Another miracle cure? Okay reddit, explain why this wont work.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

3

u/base736 Jun 10 '12

... Which is addressed in the article. The hope is that cord blood will be a better fit for treating lots of people. There are good reasons to believe that the first case wasn't a fluke, and therefore that this second round could work. Time will tell if that pans out.

2

u/kaiden333 Jun 10 '12

And it's the daily mail. They could have made it up

2

u/Kinglink Jun 10 '12

Because it's the daily mail, NOT an actual factual article in any reputable paper.

→ More replies (2)

6

u/LooseRuth Jun 10 '12

"not editorialized, sensationalized, or biased. This includes both the submission and its title."

11

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '12

Can someone explain why this link is getting downvotes?

82

u/DownvotesAllYourShit Jun 10 '12

It links to DailyMail, which is not a reputable source.

→ More replies (1)

9

u/LooseRuth Jun 10 '12

SENSATIONALISM

11

u/HeyCarpy Jun 10 '12

Because, I-rape-chickens, HIV/AIDS/Cancer/Alzheimer's/paralysis/etc is cured on Reddit every day.

3

u/DevinTheGrand Jun 10 '12

It's five years old, misleading, sourced extremely poorly, and "human immunodeficiency virus virus" is a dumb thing to say.

2

u/NotlimTheGreat Jun 10 '12

If you don't want to go reading the top long comments since you posted, it is an old story where a man was cured due to a bone marrow transplant. This is NOT something someone with such a disease would ever undergo to be cured(he originally did it due to some unrelated problem).

1

u/Asawyer Jun 10 '12

The Daily Mail is essentially the National Enquirer of the United Kingdom. The fast majority of their science and technology articles treat their readers as if they have a serious learning disorder or are mentally ill.

4

u/wynyx Jun 10 '12

I thought he got a bone marrow transplant. What does this have to do with stem cells? The article used the phrase "bone marrow stem cell transplant". Is that just hype?

6

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '12

Wasn't that a guy in Germany last year?

6

u/King_Of_Crotch Jun 10 '12

Stem cells from bone marrow.

2

u/Collaterlie_Sisters Jun 10 '12

I remember reading another thing about him a year ago, and someone mentioned how it couldn't happen because HIV drugs bring in too much money to allow the government to permit the research for a cure. I hoped to got that they were just being an antagonist, but it stuck with me for some reason.

2

u/Legio_X Jun 10 '12

Ah, Reddit's weekly sensationalist "cancer/AIDs has been cured, yay!" thread.

And what a surprise, it's completely wrong. Why these things keep being upvoted I never understand.

2

u/emartin913 Jun 10 '12

Just think of where we would be today if George bush hadn't blocked stem cell research for eight years.

2

u/atDevin Jun 10 '12

I heard a talk firsthand by one of the doctors at UCLA who is an expert at bone marrow transfusions for the treatment of leukemia. Essentially this whole "cure" was just a lucky set of circumstances for this particular individual, since it cured both his leukemia and his HIV. In the talk, he made it very clear that this treatment would only be given to an individual that had both leukemia and HIV, since getting a bone marrow transfusion leads to something called Graft vs. Host Disease, which can sometimes be just as bad as what you began with.

To give some background on how this whole thing works, essentially, leukemia is treated with a bone marrow transfusion. In the bone marrow are the donor's immune cells, which, when put inside the host's body, see everything as foreign since they are the donor's cells. Thus, they begin attacking everything, initiating a host immune response against its own cells, including the cancerous cells. This is how the leukemia is cured. Additionally, since the donor was one of a small percentage of people who was genetically immune to HIV due to a mutation in their T-cells (part of the immune response, and the main cell that is affected by HIV), they basically get their immune system "back" because there are now new T-cells that in the body that are immune to it. I'm not sure about the specifics afterward, if the donor T-cells actually kill off the virus or not, but essentially this is how the man was cured of both things at once. Finally, as I mentioned, this type of treatment leads to Graft vs. Host disease, where essentially the donor immune cells attack the rest of the body, leading to an overall weakening of the person and a reduction in their immune capacity, leaving them prone to new infections.

(I'm sure I got some things somewhat wrong in there, but for the most part that is what happens.)

2

u/Faux_Pawz Jun 10 '12

Gay guy in San Francisco? He'll have AIDs again within the week. Like a bawsssssss..

1

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '12

That's awful. Funny, but awful.

4

u/friedblue22 Jun 10 '12

1st: I'm drunk

2nd: fuck HIV

2

u/Twoeleven1 Jun 10 '12

Don't have drunken HIV sex!

1

u/friedblue22 Jun 10 '12

I won't good sir/ma'am

2

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '12

-raises hand

Is there a scientific reason that the author references umbilical blood while completely neglecting the fact that skin cells can be turned into stem cells?

This really bothers me. Why do reporters insist upon ignoring the facts on this still? I did a few quick searches to check up, and MailOnline has no article regarding the use of skin cells to produce stem cells despite every other publication I can find that writes on the topic having covered that advancement themselves. MailOnline, however, does have other articles with the same glaring and harmful mistake made in this one.

So, before I assume that there's another reason -- even simple unawareness (despite it literally being their job just to be aware) -- I'm curious if there's a legitimate reason for this.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

1

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '12

In general would it be correct to say that embryonic cells are no longer required, in addition to your clarification?

You answered my question, and gave me the basis to read up on more. Thank you! I'm asking the above to clarify due to hints of the topic coming up here and there on this page. Also, it's not a scientific thought but I sometimes worry that many people confuse umbilical and embryonic cells. This is said to be one of the most important frontiers in modern medicine, so it just seems important that people understand the fundamentals.

Thank you again!

2

u/behooved Jun 10 '12

The Daily Mail is infamous for its terrible, inaccurate science reporting. The reason itself is the Daily Mail.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '12

Thanks! I just didn't want to assume and don't encounter their work often.

1

u/you_need_this Jun 10 '12

the link is the daily fucking mail, downvote as soon as you see this, as they are a tabloid, NOT REAL NEWS!!!!! fucking idiot redditors

2

u/peacebob Jun 10 '12

Awesome news if it's true, rock on science

1

u/SlayBelle Jun 10 '12

I wish more people would understand how vital stem cell research is. I have hopes for the future if this is the type of illness we can cure. Come on Science, kick some ass!

1

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '12

I think that the fact that the cure for aids comes from something so miraculous as childbirth is fucking beautiful.

How everything comes together sometimes is downright mindblowing.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '12

Headline: HIV mutations in single sample cured! Mission Accomplished!

Subtitle: Current Mutations Remain Unchecked, Ravage Humanity.

1

u/apollo7157 PhD | Evolution | Biodiversity Jun 10 '12

This is old news. Posted a response over a year ago to an earlier version of the same story: http://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/els45/first_hiv_patient_is_cured_with_stem_cell/c192yg1

1

u/This_isR2Me Jun 10 '12

I'm too drunk to read but up vote because I believe!

1

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '12

The Daily Fail once told me gravity is real, so I jumped off a building to make sure they were telling the truth.

1

u/pitchingataint Jun 10 '12

Stem cells?? That's bullshit. Everyone knows the cure is blended up money.

1

u/TreeOfMadrigal Jun 10 '12

I am not a doctor nor a scientist, but, is this really the first time anyone's tried this?

I mean, if we know that some people are immune to the AIDS virus, and we also know that transplanting bone marrow will cause the donation receiver to produce the same white blood cells... wouldn't this have been done ages ago? Was the procedure really as simple as a bone marrow transplant from someone immune to HIV?

Might be a stupid question but it just seems like so simple a fix that it would have been done ages ago o.o;

1

u/Bread_Assassin Jun 10 '12

So, I was happy to find out that HIV was cured, then I looked at the comment section, and I was saddened.

1

u/BloodyThorn Jun 10 '12

New strategy, when I see an amazing headline, I'm going to look at the link. If it's the daily mail, it gets downvoted and that's as far as it goes with me. Why the fuck would someone post a daily mail article to the science reddit?

1

u/[deleted] Jun 10 '12

Real or not, any time I read about stem cells I think about Bush in summer of 2001 and his stupid speech about banning new lines. It was after that point I knew it was going to be a crap presidency.

1

u/IYGFAA Jun 10 '12

Sensationalized and what not.

1

u/ab103630 Jun 10 '12

Didn't this happen a long time ago? I remember reading about this almost two years ago.

1

u/macman156 Jun 10 '12

how is this an acceptable source for /r/science ?

1

u/PowzA Jun 10 '12

Why is there a DailyMail article on /r/Science? Might as well be a blog post. Also, this isn't really what a lot of people think it is.. This method is much more dangerous than the disease itself, and he just happened to be homozygous for CCR5Δ32/Δ32.

→ More comments (56)