Pill that may be able to prevent HIV

Chamone MF · 09-05-2012 03:08PM

Chamone MF wrote: »

Thats the ironic tragedy about it, life is damn cruel sometimes.
Africa is a fked up continent and thats also where aids is at its worst.
Finding a cure would just mean more children living a life in squalid poverty and THEN dying rather than just not surviving birth.
And population would shoot up in barely civilized countries.

Cianos wrote: »

This isn't true. Poverty, disease and population (over)growth are all interlinked. Removing one does not mean the others will continue along the same trajectory they were going in beforehand. Poverty stricken people tend to have more children, people are poorer where disease is rampant. If the population was healthier, education would shoot up in value, peoples overall quality of life and prospects would improve, the population growth would slow down, not speed up.

edit: To follow, people shouldn't be reluctant towards 3rd world aid because of the idea of the population exploding if it were healthier. Many people seem to actually view it this way and it's very simplistic. Africa is very capable of being a food surplus continent with correct infrastructure etc.

Whats not true?

Africa is a fked up continent (true)

and thats also where aids is at its worst (true)

Finding a cure would just mean more children living a life in squalid poverty

[ more would survive/not die as there would be a cure and a cure would mean less deaths, they'd live a life in poverty, and procreate and then die later] .......(true)

And population would shoot up in barely civilized countries. (true)

[there would be more people around due to less people dying ....who would in turn have children]

given the high rate at which kids die of aids in African countries this would be a 'shoot/leap up'. (Obviously true)

opinion guy · 09-05-2012 03:18PM

true-or-false wrote: »

Well as it's already been said there is more in the treatment camp than this (in fact meds aside I heard about a possible cure - there was an example of a HIV+ person getting a bone marrow transplant from a HIV immune person and they were cured completely - obviously this isn't a viable cure though, and even if it was, it's hardly suitable for clinical trials).

Why is this obviously not a viable cure and why is it not suitable for clinical trials ?

They do this kind of thing all the time in leukemia patients. In fact the reason this guy got the bone marrow transplant was that they had cancer of some sort.

seamus · 09-05-2012 03:23PM

Even with rampant disease, population control is still an issue in "barely civilised" countries. They're a lot like Ireland of 80+ years ago where mothers would have so many children, they would commonly list how many they've had in terms of:
1. Pregnancies
2. Born alive
3. Currently Alive

Curing aids would barely make any difference to population growth in developing nations because it currently well outstrips the death rate as it is. You also have to consider that in many cases a child/parent who has contracted aids likely exists in the lowest socio-economic grouping and so if they weren't killed by AIDS, they stand a fairly strong chance of being killed by something else.

Curing AIDS is far from a panacea, but neither is the syndrome itself any kind of effective population control mechanism or Darwinian necessity. If AIDS could be tackled easily and cheaply, it frees up resources to deal with other problems.

The primary issue with Africa is not necessarily disease, poverty or education. It's primarily that the countries most suffering with these issues can't climb out of them because they're being run by corrupt despot dictators (like Mugabe) who maintain a stupid population to avoid losing power, or because there is basically no effective government and much of the country is run by warlords and militias, who again have no interest in anything but their own power.

Stiffler2 · 09-05-2012 03:28PM

How does one actually spell hiv ?

09-05-2012 03:45PM

opinion guy wrote: »

Why is this obviously not a viable cure and why is it not suitable for clinical trials ?

They do this kind of thing all the time in leukemia patients. In fact the reason this guy got the bone marrow transplant was that they had cancer of some sort.

Well I can't say I'm in any way qualified to comment, so take this with a pinch of salt, I might be wrong.

A bone marrow transplant is a big thing to commit to, it's not like giving blood, it's quite invasive. You would need to find a match that is both a viable marrow match but also HIV immune, which is a small percentage of people of a certain genetic background (if I remember right it's mainly europeans, and it's also a recessive gene so you need two copies, and also I think I heard it's dying out too). So the pool of donors is small, far smaller than a regular bone marrow transplant, which itself is usually quite difficult to manage, usually it's a family member.

Now considering AIDS is most common in Africa, and the immunity gene is most common in Europe, and the fact that most bone marrow transplants are between family members, it seems far-fetched to think that we could find corresponding donor-patient pairs on any sort of scale to perform enough trials to make a definitive conclusion, never mind offering it as a cure on a substantial scale. Adding to that the fact that not all carriers of both sets of the gene would be willing to participate, how would they manage it?

Even if you tested the bone marrow of every person in Europe, the eventual pool of willing matches would be small. If it managed to get past trial, I'm sure that family members or friends of HIV positive people would be willing to be tested, but it would be like looking for a needle in a haystack.

I'd be surprised if there isn't a huge number of people researching a way to make it work though, and for all I know there have been advances in the bone marrow approach since the discovery.

opinion guy · 09-05-2012 03:57PM

true-or-false wrote: »

Well I can't say I'm in any way qualified to comment, so take this with a pinch of salt, I might be wrong.

A bone marrow transplant is a big thing to commit to, it's not like giving blood, it's quite invasive. You would need to find a match that is both a viable marrow match but also HIV immune, which is a small percentage of people of a certain genetic background (if I remember right it's mainly europeans, and it's also a recessive gene so you need two copies, and also I think I heard it's dying out too). So the pool of donors is small, far smaller than a regular bone marrow transplant, which itself is usually quite difficult to manage, usually it's a family member.

Now considering AIDS is most common in Africa, and the immunity gene is most common in Europe, and the fact that most bone marrow transplants are between family members, it seems far-fetched to think that we could find corresponding donor-patient pairs on any sort of scale to perform enough trials to make a definitive conclusion, never mind offering it as a cure on a substantial scale. Adding to that the fact that not all carriers of both sets of the gene would be willing to participate, how would they manage it?

Even if you tested the bone marrow of every person in Europe, the eventual pool of willing matches would be small. If it managed to get past trial, I'm sure that family members or friends of HIV positive people would be willing to be tested, but it would be like looking for a needle in a haystack.

I'd be surprised if there isn't a huge number of people researching a way to make it work though, and for all I know there have been advances in the bone marrow approach since the discovery.

It doesn't require a HIV immunity gene - with a bone marrow transplant such as this you completely wipe out the recipients immune system and marrow stem cells. Therefore you eradicate HIV from there body - along with their immune system. You then give them new immune system with the bone marrow transplant. All it requires is that the donor doesn't have HIV. Of course there are complications and side effects. I suppose it is more risky than taking pills. And you are correct in saying finding donors is a challenge.

cartell_best · 09-05-2012 04:04PM

Why not the old fashioned way? Use protection? stop the infection!

1ZRed · 09-05-2012 04:14PM

The thing with HIV is that it's so unstable as a virus. If I remember correctly the virus uses two different types of proteins to 'break into' a cell and change its function. The only reason why the HIV medication works is because it inhibits just one of these proteins but not the other. The latter being very random and so, near impossible to find an inhibitor for it because it keeps replicating its self but it does it wrong nearly all the time so its ever changing (Similar to the flu virus) This is why HIV in these people seldom develops into AIDS but isn't cured either.
A while ago scientists sent out a protein simulator and asked gamers to try and build the HIV virus and after a few weeks someone managed to do it. This could lead to a HIV cure in about 15-20 years because they now might know its fundamental structure.
It's still going to be a push to cure it but in a way, the scientists are half way there already. Its just that no major breakthrough has been made since the 90s.

But all of this doesn't matter to these Africans because up or down, they won't see the cure for years and years even if we got it tomorrow.

1ZRed · 09-05-2012 04:15PM

cartell_best wrote: »

Why not the old fashioned way? Use protection? stop the infection!

I completely agree!:)

09-05-2012 04:30PM

opinion guy wrote: »

It doesn't require a HIV immunity gene - with a bone marrow transplant such as this you completely wipe out the recipients immune system and marrow stem cells. Therefore you eradicate HIV from there body - along with their immune system. You then give them new immune system with the bone marrow transplant. All it requires is that the donor doesn't have HIV.

Are you sure? I thought it was only ever the one accidental case where a person who had gotten a transplant had been cured of HIV and on further inspection they found that the donor was immune?

Edit: Actually, I read it in the Metro Herald a year or two ago, so I'll take your word for it..

opinion guy · 09-05-2012 04:39PM

true-or-false wrote: »

Are you sure? I thought it was only ever the one accidental case where a person who had gotten a transplant had been cured of HIV and on further inspection they found that the donor was immune?

Edit: Actually, I read it in the Metro Herald a year or two ago, so I'll take your word for it..

Well you may be right:
http://www.foxnews.com/health/2010/12/14/doctors-claim-hiv-positive-man-cured-stem-cell-transplant/

I hadn't heard that detail before. i shall see if I can track down the case report

seamus · 09-05-2012 04:42PM

opinion guy wrote: »

It doesn't require a HIV immunity gene - with a bone marrow transplant such as this you completely wipe out the recipients immune system and marrow stem cells. Therefore you eradicate HIV from there body - along with their immune system. You then give them new immune system with the bone marrow transplant. All it requires is that the donor doesn't have HIV. Of course there are complications and side effects. I suppose it is more risky than taking pills. And you are correct in saying finding donors is a challenge.

HIV attaches to host lymphocytes which are continually present in the blood stream. Replacing the bone marrow will have the short-term effect of destroying the immune system because no new white blood cells are produced, but as the donor marrow replaces the white blood cells, they will just be cross-contaminated by the existing infected lymphocytes. There is no effective way to "clean" someone's blood of the infected white blood cells before performing the transplant.

The case you're referring to was a marrow transplant from an HIV-immune donor. This was still exceptionally risky and probably wouldn't have been undertaken if the patient didn't also have leukaemia.

09-05-2012 04:42PM

opinion guy wrote: »

Well you may be right:
http://www.foxnews.com/health/2010/12/14/doctors-claim-hiv-positive-man-cured-stem-cell-transplant/

I hadn't heard that detail before. i shall see if I can track down the case report

From what it says here, the donor had the two copies of the immunity gene, but the transplant would have killed most of the virus and using an immune donor was more of a "let's see what happens if we try this". It then goes on to say that actually it was a miracle it worked at all, and that for a while he was in a coma because of it.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2011/08/10/the-berlin-patient-may-not-be-the-answer-as-hiv-research-progresses-toward-a-cure/

opinion guy · 09-05-2012 04:47PM

I found the guys website - the patient I mean.

Well worth a read:
http://timothyrbrown.com/

Chamone MF · 10-05-2012 02:13AM

seamus wrote: »

Even with rampant disease, population control is still an issue in "barely civilised" countries. ...Yes it is, but thats entirely beside the point. This is like saying 'I have a sore back now, but hey, my back was sore a week ago anyway'.

Curing aids would barely make any difference to population growth in developing nations because it currently well outstrips the death rate as it is. - What? I think you'll find those numbers add up to a substantial total.

You also have to consider that in many cases a child/parent who has contracted aids likely exists in the lowest socio-economic grouping and so if they weren't killed by AIDS, they stand a fairly strong chance of being killed by something else.

Yes...cruel irony. (sound familiar) They'd live in squalid poverty and procreate and THEN die.

Curing AIDS is far from a panacea, but neither is the syndrome itself any kind of effective population control mechanism or Darwinian necessity. If AIDS could be tackled easily and cheaply, it frees up resources to deal with other problems. hmm, Problems like an inevitable spike in population for example?

In any case, its a no win cruel situation, if they don't die young from aids they get to live a sht life in poverty and then die having endured a life of hardship and will likely taken the time to introduce some poor newborn to the same rotten existence.

I call a place where walking tens of kilometers under the risk of death to get some water "barely civilised". What do you call it? High quality lifestyle?

Pill that may be able to prevent HIV

Comments