Caius
Posts: 175
Joined: 2/2/2005 Status: offline
|
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.
< Message edited by Caius -- 7/9/2009 10:12:32 AM >
|