RE: possible cure for aids

RE: possible cure for aids (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Caius -> RE: possible cure for aids (7/9/2009 9:33:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sirsholly i thought the immune system was down because the current bone marrow (ie white cells) was destroyed prior to the transplant. Actually, in this case it would be both. And rather difficult to say which would be more the more potentially devastating effect on immune function and really a bit pointless in that each cause interacts with and exacerbates the other, but I still tend to agree with you that, if you're going to try to make such an artificial distinction, the absence of native bone-marrow is the greater culprit. Those who go through a bone marrow transplant typically do take anti-rejection drugs, though -- assuming that the marrow comes from another person (in many cases of marrow transplant the host and donor are one-in-the-same, which of course makes the incidence of rejection extremely low). However, the course of treatment is not necessarily as prolonged as the necessity for antiretrovirals for those with AIDS as was suggested above, nor would you love in fear of an ever-declining T-cell count, mounting viral immunity to your treatments or a host of other HIV-specific concerns; all-in-all, the post-operative treatments would be a vastly preferable and medically defensible option to living with HIV for a strong majority of patients. The real problem, as Ken points out, is the danger's inherent in the initial procedures and the following risks of infection. That's where the risk/benefit ratio begins to plunge. That's assuming that research bears out the efficacy of this treatment and that donors could be found for a signifcant portion of those who are HIV positive, both points I'm dubious on, though I do believe the answer to this epidemic will ultimately employ a similar creative application of gene therapy.

sirsholly -> RE: possible cure for aids (7/9/2009 10:23:42 AM)
quote: And rather difficult to say which would be more the more potentially devastating effect on immune function and really a bit pointless in that each cause interacts with and exacerbates the other, but I still tend to agree with you that, if you're going to try to make such an artificial distinction, the absence of native bone-marrow is the greater culprit. True, but only until the bone marrow begins production of white cells. Once that occurs, the risk of infection secondary to lack of the bodies natural immune system is lessened. The anti rejection drugs present a possible lifetime risk, but as you stated, a lesser risk.

pixidustpet -> RE: possible cure for aids (7/9/2009 10:54:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: beargonewild Yes that does look promising and I sure hope that this procedure proves to be one viable solution. Though there is one huge glitch Holly, it is a sad fact that for millions of us, we are banned from being on any donor list simply because of the fact that we have or had sex with another male. That also include us who can prove that our blood is clean. I am not allowed donate blood I am not allowed to be an organ donor I am not allowed to be a bone marrow donor. bear, i'm blacklisted for being married to (and being intimate with) a male who frequented the gloryholes in a "video store". over 18 years ago that i was married to him, probably 25 years ago that he partook in those establishments. i'm clean. but i'm blacklisted. kitten

sirsholly -> RE: possible cure for aids (7/9/2009 11:00:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pixidustpet quote: ORIGINAL: beargonewild Yes that does look promising and I sure hope that this procedure proves to be one viable solution. Though there is one huge glitch Holly, it is a sad fact that for millions of us, we are banned from being on any donor list simply because of the fact that we have or had sex with another male. That also include us who can prove that our blood is clean. I am not allowed donate blood I am not allowed to be an organ donor I am not allowed to be a bone marrow donor. bear, i'm blacklisted for being married to (and being intimate with) a male who frequented the gloryholes in a "video store". over 18 years ago that i was married to him, probably 25 years ago that he partook in those establishments. i'm clean. but i'm blacklisted. kitten you have to be kidding!! You cannot donate blood because of a relationship that is 18 yrs old? Wow...just wow!

pixidustpet -> RE: possible cure for aids (7/9/2009 11:04:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sirsholly quote: ORIGINAL: pixidustpet bear, i'm blacklisted for being married to (and being intimate with) a male who frequented the gloryholes in a "video store". over 18 years ago that i was married to him, probably 25 years ago that he partook in those establishments. i'm clean. but i'm blacklisted. kitten you have to be kidding!! You cannot donate blood because of a relationship that is 18 yrs old? Wow...just wow! yep. i have a friend who works for a place that does donation, and she verified it for me. no donations. it sucks, because how many women whose husbands are "on the down-low" would that eliminate? or the men even? shakes head i say TEST the damn blood, and stop worrying about what the adults/their partners do in their spare time. kitten

hlen5 -> RE: possible cure for aids (7/9/2009 11:18:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slaveboyforyou quote: it is a sad fact that for millions of us, we are banned from being on any donor list simply because of the fact that we have or had sex with another male. How do they find out unless you tell them? Don't tell them; what are they going to do to you if they find out? Can you possibly be SERIOUS, SBFY??? People can be carriers for years and not know it. You are nonchalantly discussing possibly contaminating the blood supply for EVERYONE, including You!! Do you want someone with an already compromised immune system to get contaminated blood?? I can't donate because I was in Europe from 1982 to 1984. The blood supply chain doesn't want to test my blood ($500 test) to find out whether I'm carrying mad cow disease (I think I stopped eating beef around that time anyway). I'm dissappointed I can't do what I consider to be a civic duty, but I would NEVER lie. I don't want anyone, much less someone I love to die because of me. HOW CAN YOU SUGGEST LYING?????? Posted before I read your second comment SBFY, I couldn't care less about you lying about your extra-cirricular drugs. You know your hair holds your drug history, right? Any employer taking a hair sample could figure out your drug use. Any hair formed before you stopped said drugs that you haven't cut off will tell the tester loud and clear.

samboct -> RE: possible cure for aids (7/9/2009 12:26:01 PM)
Hi Caius Your point about being a slap in the face of existing AIDs researchers is well taken- but if I may amplify- my comment was intended to be more a slap in the face of granting agencies (and Gallo)- which know damn well that the research that's been funded over the past decade or so has been largely incremental- low risk/low gain research instead of high risk/high gain. There was a recent article in the NY Times here http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/28/health/research/28cancer.html?_r=4&pagewanted=1&ref=science which discussed the lack of risk in cancer research. I would point out that not funding high risk research is actually a more expensive alternative- we're getting lousy bang/research buck. Alternatively, there does need to be a mix between high risk research and incremental research- every so often both will come up with some surprises. So while existing AIDS researchers have been working hard- a less risk averse grant system would have allowed more progress to be made. I certainly don't blame the researchers- hell, I wouldn't have minded being one of them. In terms of the link to Nanoviricides- I've seen their presentations. While their stuff hasn't been in humans yet, the proposed mechanism of action and their animal studies (might not be on the website) do look promising. But they haven't gotten any NIH funding, and I suspect that anybody that would propose anything as far out as this technology probably wouldn't either. However, waiting for the damn virus to mutate and reduce the effectiveness of the existing drugs doesn't seem to be such a smart idea. I'm very opposed to complacency- the idea that the existing drugs just need to be more widely available and work well enough, because I think the likelihood is that the virus will mutate, and these drugs will lose effectiveness over time. Sam

aravain -> RE: possible cure for aids (7/9/2009 6:32:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: beargonewild Yes that does look promising and I sure hope that this procedure proves to be one viable solution. Though there is one huge glitch Holly, it is a sad fact that for millions of us, we are banned from being on any donor list simply because of the fact that we have or had sex with another male. That also include us who can prove that our blood is clean. I am not allowed donate blood I am not allowed to be an organ donor I am not allowed to be a bone marrow donor. Hell, I'm not allowed to give blood (or anything else) INDEFINITELY because I lived in Scotland during an outbreak of mad cow (I was, like, 1). My whole family can't. It's more of a relief for me, really. I dun wanna do it (religious reasons); it's still annoying on a certain level, though.

aravain -> RE: possible cure for aids (7/9/2009 6:55:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pixidustpet i say TEST the damn blood, and stop worrying about what the adults/their partners do in their spare time. Here's what kills me about all this. THEY DO TEST IT! They have a whole slew of tests that they do, including HIV.

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125