A Cure for AIDS?

Someone's been Digging.

I bet the cures slow progression into medicine has something to do with stem cells.

I don't buy much into conspiracy crap, but I strongly believe that this sort of thing has been possible for a long time, but doesn't get publicity or marketed for one of two reasons:

1. The cost to produce the drug, or undertake the procedure is so expensive that its availability isn't feasible, or

2. The rights to the drugs and or procedures are bought up by pharmaceutical companies who bury it in the hopes of marketing more expensive and less effective drugs/procedures.

I really don't think this is new technology.

Reb Cpl wrote: I don't buy much into conspiracy crap, but I strongly believe that this sort of thing has been possible for a long time, but doesn't get publicity or marketed for one of two reasons:1. The cost to produce the drug, or undertake the procedure is so expensive that its availability isn't feasible, or2. The rights to the drugs and or procedures are bought up by pharmaceutical companies who bury it in the hopes of marketing more expensive and less effective drugs/procedures. I really don't think this is new technology.

doesn't really apply in this case as the cure isn't a drug, as darur alluded to its a complete bone marrow transplant - another article i read on it a while back stated that its normally only given to people with late stage cancer because the procedure kills approxamately 30% of the people who do it.

and as darur also said - you pretty much have to destroy the persons immune system to do it because the persons old bone marrow has to be completely destroyed, which they do with chemotherapy.

also bone marrow of the donor has to very closely match bone marrow of the recipient, as a result of which the majority of people on transplant lists die before they ever find a suitable donor.

add in the unlikelyhood of finding a suitable donor who is HIV immune and well... this isn't really a feasable widespread treatment.

it could be a very important discovery however, as they are currently looking at possible ways using gene therapy to cure aids based on this principal.

Edited by adrenalinejunky - 29 June 2009 at 2:44am

If I could jut in here for just a second. "No detectable virus count" and "Cured" aren't the same thing. All the CCR5 Delta32 gene does is prevent the virus' reproduction as rapidly as it would in a more favorable environment. The virus is still there, just in minute quantities. There's still a chance at spreading it. Does this particular genetic mutation mean you're going to live a long life that might otherwise be cut short by HIV/AIDS? Yes. Does it mean you are cured? No. And that's a very dangerous line that people seem to freely want to cross. Magic Johnson has a non-detectable viral load right now, but if he went out and started bonking people without protection, he'd still spread the disease. Maybe not as much, but he still would. In short, NOT A CURE, just a really really really good bandaid.

from my reading on the subject it seems rambino is correct...

as the CCR5 mutation prevents AIDS from binding with white blood cells, they are unable to replicate and should all die off.

edit:

either way it is a cure for AIDS: or Acquired Imunno Deficiancy Syndrom, the question is whether it cures the underlying cause - or HIV, which as i said, from what i've read it appears that it should.

Edited by adrenalinejunky - 29 June 2009 at 2:41pm

FDA approval is going to be a pain.