Bone Marrow Transplants Said to Eliminate HIV in Two Patients
HIV is undetectable in two men who underwent bone marrow transplants researchers at Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston announced Thursday, according to CBS News:
Both patients were being treated for cases of cancer. One of the patients underwent a bone marrow transplant two years ago at the Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women's Cancer Center in Boston, the other had the procedure done four years ago at the same hospital. NBCNews.com reports that one of the patients is in his 50s and has been infected since the early 1980s towards the beginning of the AIDS epidemic and the other man, in his 20s, was infected at birth.
Both stayed on their antiretroviral medication regimens, the standard treatment of HIV, following the transplants.
The researchers discovered that overtime as the patients' cells were replaced by cells from the donor, evidence of HIV in the patients' blood tests disappeared. The researchers also said both patients have no signs of HIV in their DNA or RNA and levels of their disease-fighting antibodies have also decreased. The researchers think the medications helped allow these cells to be replaced.
Timothy Brown, aka The Berlin Patient, who announced this week that he's still HIV-free after undergoing a similar bone marrow transplant, released a statement:
“Words cannot begin to express my joy that two other men may have been cured of HIV. This reinforces my determination and belief that we must fulfill my Foundation’s central mission of investing in cutting-edge therapies and treatments to advance AIDS cure research. As I have said many times before, I want everyone to be cured of this disease. We can only hope that this case and today’s development represents the beginning of the end of this plague.“
Obviously I'm happy for these men. But it goes without saying that finding a match for a bone marrow transplant is incredibly difficult and is extremely expensive and complicated.
Posted by: Paul R | Jul 27, 2012 7:03:16 PM
It's always good news when progress is made toward finding a cure for ANY disease. I hope that this is the beginning of the end for HIV. At least something can get everyone's attention off Chick-Fil-A!
And wouldn't it be great to say to evangelicals "Why is it that if HIV is God's punishment for homosexual behavior the disease is now being eradicated?"
Posted by: Mary | Jul 27, 2012 7:19:37 PM
donor marrow from person people with CCR5 Delta 32?
The CCR5 mutation that protects people from bubonic plague and was it a year ago a man with transplanted marrow from a know donor with the mutation turned out HIV negative over time
Posted by: say what | Jul 27, 2012 7:56:55 PM
HIV does not cause AIDS. HIV is a virus of association, not cause. The widely believed notion that HIV causes AIDS was promoted by the pharmaceutical industry (which had huge investments in anti-HIV drugs) and the promiscuous wing of the gay male community (which prefers to believe that a random virus, rather than chosen behavior, is the cause of AIDS).
Oh, and for those who keep calling AIDS a disease, it isn't. AIDS is a syndrome, not a disease. Get your words right.
Posted by: jason | Jul 27, 2012 8:16:26 PM
@JASON, loony, koo-koo for cocoa puffs alert
Ignorant fools, such as JASON, should not post messages on Towleroad.
HIV absolutely causes AIDS, and HIV is transmitted via unprotected sexual activity.
HIV is a virus that targets the human immune system and causes, yes causes, AIDS. Do not pay attention to whack jobs that spew ridiculous stories stating otherwise.
Posted by: Xavi | Jul 27, 2012 8:38:36 PM
Timothy Brown, the Berlin patient, is quoted as saying that AIDS is a disease. He's factually incorrect. As such, I can't believe anything he says. Let me repeat for the benefit of those who have difficulty understanding: AIDS is a syndrome, NOT a disease. That's why it's called Acquired Immune Deficieny SYNDROME.
Additionally, Timothy Brown say that AIDS is a plague. He's incorrect again. AIDS is NOT a plague. It is highly contained and cannot spread by air-borne means in the same way the Bubonic Plague once did.
One has to question Timothy Brown and his connections to a Foundation. Is money driving his statements?
Posted by: jason | Jul 27, 2012 8:56:52 PM
Quelle surprise! Jason the troll shows up to spread the time-honored myth that HIV doesn't cause AIDS.
I have one suggestion for Jason: go get yourself infected and prove us all wrong!
Posted by: RyanInSacto | Jul 27, 2012 9:24:13 PM
RYAN,
A doctor infected himself with HIV about 15 years ago to prove that HIV does not cause AIDS. He's still perfectly healthy. I forget his name but it was in the media. Have you already forgotten?
Posted by: jason | Jul 27, 2012 9:29:11 PM
Also, Jason, an infection need not be airborne to be considered a plague. For example, you cite the Bubonic Plage which was... NOT AIRBORNE. Duh.
Further, though the original definition of plague referred specifically to bacterial infections – this was "The Plague" - the term is now widely understood as "an epidemic disease that causes high mortality."
You should take time away from trolling and spend some time with a dictionary.
Posted by: RyanInSacto | Jul 27, 2012 9:34:55 PM
While I am thrilled for these men, the reality is this is a "cure" that is going to be exceedingly difficult to replicate, as Say What notes, and is exceedingly horrible to go through. BMT is not for the faint-hearted and is an incredibly risky procedure to boot. The possibilities of secondary infections while the bone marrow regrows, the risk of graft vs. host disease (when bone marrow rejects the donor) and the need to take immune-suppressing drugs for a lifetime after all mean this is not a procedure that will benefit many people and is impossible to roll out to the millions who need it.
However, the way in which the disease was eradicated from the body may very well lead to a procedure or pharma treatment that could eradicate the virus, and I'm thinking whoever does that is a lock for the Nobel.
Posted by: CPT_Doom | Jul 27, 2012 9:39:08 PM
Thanks for telling me about a random doctor that you claim infected himself and is still perfectly healthy. While I have no idea whether you're making this up or not (no link provided), one person managing to suppress HIV without treatment is not unheard of – there are plenty of documented cases of this and researchers have made advances in understanding what is different about their immune systems. Towleroad has featured posts on this topic several times. This does not disprove the link between HIV and AIDS. It merely proves that some people can manage the virus while most CANNOT.
And, unless you're the doctor that infected himself with HIV, I'm still holding out for you to walk that plank for us.
Posted by: RyanInSacto | Jul 27, 2012 9:41:45 PM
The Bubonic Plague was air-borne through mosquitos.
Posted by: jason | Jul 27, 2012 10:12:08 PM
that would be mosquito borne, not air borne
Posted by: Dan | Jul 27, 2012 11:02:32 PM
that would be mosquito borne, not air borne
Posted by: Dan | Jul 27, 2012 11:02:38 PM
Jason gave me AIDS so it's Jason Bourne
Posted by: Rick | Jul 27, 2012 11:10:42 PM
sad LOL over the blatant ignorance of jason
Bubonic plaque was not & is not air borne nor transmitted by mosquitoes
It was/ is transmitted via fleas
The black death / bubonic plague was via fleas
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bubonic_plague
the mutation CCR5 Delta 32 cropped up amongst some northern europeans that saved them from infection and has been passed down to their descendants and in america thanx to our being a melting pot is found amongst all racial demographics now (there is no such thing as racial "purity" in america)but only at like a 10% penetration rate of the american and european gene pools
it appears to prevent HIV infection and all other viral infections
Its not all roses though because it does make one more susceptible to another health risk but at the moment can't remember what it was nor feel like googling it since its almost 1 am here
Posted by: say what | Jul 28, 2012 12:47:44 AM
On the whole, all these fashionable articles are perfect way to show your style statement, devotion, love, etc.
Posted by: Red Bottom shoes | Jul 28, 2012 2:52:45 AM
@Jason - a syndrome is a set of symptoms that collectively characterize a disease. Anyway, whether you call it a syndrome/disease/virus/whatever, it's still going to kill you so why get hung up on semantics? Usually, if a person is losing an argument, they resort to calling out grammatical errors or semantics because they have no other argument. Take your trolling elsewhere..
Posted by: Lucas | Jul 28, 2012 3:18:24 AM
LOL at all the idiots on here who haven't even done basic research into this- HIV is NOT the cause of AIDS, and I bet none of you actually know what 'AIDS' is!
Indicator disease + HIV = AIDS
Indicator disease - HIV = Indicator disease
i.e. if you die from TB and are 'HIV negative', the 'experts' say you died from TB. If you die from TB and are supposedly 'HIV positive', the 'experts' say you died from 'AIDS'. It is a CIRCULAR definition.
Do you know what HTLV3 is? Do you know how a Western Blot works? It's completely unreliable and the results are arbitrarily decided by a human being.
How much 'live' HIV is there in an 'infected' male's sperm?
How does HIV get from a woman's vagina into a man's body?
Did you bother to ask these basic questions? Of course not.
HIV and AIDS is the biggest scandal and fraud to have been perpetrated by the 'health' industry and pharmaceutical industry EVER, in the history of mankind.
Why aren't millions of people dying from 'AIDS' in the West, since more and more young people are having unprotected sex than ever before, and STD rates rise every year?
Try reading the damning article 'The Trouble with Nevirapine'.
None of you idiots promoting the 'party line' have a clue what you're talking about. Calling people 'trolls' and trying to silence dissent just proves that even more.
You're too stupid to investigate the facts, so you just bleat whatever the T.V. tells you, thinking it makes you safe. Unfortunately you don't have the facts on your side. The drug companies will happily kill millions of people as long as they make money out of it, and they have, with their blatantly poisonous 'AIDS' drugs.
Read 'The Trouble with Nevirapine' and then come back to me when you have a clue.
Posted by: Big Pharma | Jul 28, 2012 6:09:24 AM
Jason back as Big Pharma.
Like all "fundamentalists" this moron is set in his beliefs and will not listen to facts.
Or maybe he's just a cracked out barebacker denying he is putting himself at risk.
David Rasnick is the HIV denialist who has said he'd be willing to inject himself to prove HIV doesn't cause AIDS. He NEVER did so.
Christine Maggiore made a living being an HIV denialist and she and her baby both died of HIV related complications...even though both were not "using drugs" "having promiscuous sex" or "malnourished."
Posted by: QJ201 | Jul 28, 2012 6:59:50 AM
I ignore online assholes. And I suggest others follow suit.
I have no problem whatsoever allowing some random online hate-monger to have a different opinion than I have.
It is not worth arguing with them. Allow them their beliefs and spend your precious time discussing things that matter.
Posted by: Quill | Jul 28, 2012 7:59:51 AM
Having said that. . . . because I am sometimes a hypocrite and DO get sucked into these discussions:
I have worked with pediatric HIV for 15 years. The children I have worked with were not born with AIDS. They were, however, born with HIV. The HIV virus can be transmitted matrilinearly. AIDS is not. But many of these children, particularly the poor ones who could not afford proper health care, ended up developing AIDS. And many of them died.
And so, while you may believe whatever you choose to believe about the origin of AIDS, it seems very clear that the best way to stop the transmission of AIDS is to stop the transmission of HIV. I know that pregnant mothers who receive treatments that control the level of HIV in their blood very rarely pass on
Posted by: Quill | Jul 28, 2012 8:08:36 AM
Having said that. . . . because I am sometimes a hypocrite and DO get sucked into these discussions:
I have worked with pediatric HIV for 15 years. The children I have worked with were not born with AIDS. They were, however, born with HIV. The HIV virus can be transmitted matrilinearly. AIDS is not. But many of these children, particularly the poor ones who could not afford proper health care, ended up developing AIDS. And many of them died.
And so, while you may believe whatever you choose to believe about the origin of AIDS, it seems very clear that the best way to stop the transmission of AIDS is to stop the transmission of HIV. I know that pregnant mothers who receive treatments that control the level of HIV in their blood very rarely pass on
Posted by: Quill | Jul 28, 2012 8:08:38 AM
HIV to their children.
And when the mother does NOT pass HIV to their child, the child does NOT develop AIDS.
The link is undeniable. And misguided opinions will only lead to more deaths.
I will not respond to any further ignorant and dangerous comments on this thread.
Posted by: Quill | Jul 28, 2012 8:11:46 AM
Thank you QUILL
Posted by: HERMES | Jul 28, 2012 10:03:06 AM