Man officially cured of HIV

According to the New England Journal of Medicine article, he was on Highly Active Antiretroviral Therapy (HAART) before implantation. Focusing solely on the pre-implantation phase, the presence of HIV1-RNA barely showed up when they attempted to scan for it using Northern Blot or a similar category of tests used to assay for the RNA band. When they took him off HAART then the HIV1-RNA picked up again. Therefore they decided to keep him on it and once again the HIV1-RNA disappeared. The implant took place when HIV1-RNA levels were extremely low, therefore indicating that the HIV machinery used to reproduce (i.e. reverse transcriptase) was not actively present when the mutant red blood cells were given to the patient.

And they don't do this HAART thing for everyone? Or at least, for most patients?

And they don't do this HAART thing for everyone? Or at least, for most patients?

What's the relevance of this question to anything else being discussed? :f6:

@ Stereo: I found the answer online. Thank you for replying to my responses.

@OB3LISK: Most patients receive antiretrovirals who have HIV. HIV doesn't have virus DNA at all, but contains virus RNA and Reverse Transcriptase. After sneaking in their virus RNA into the cell, they use Reverse Transcriptase (kind of like a building tool) to use the virus RNA as a template to make virus DNA. Virus DNA is recognized by the cell and after using Integrase (integrated) to become part of the human cell DNA they are able to be constructed using the human body's natural production capabilities because they have essentially become recognized as human DNA by the internal processes in the cell. Most of the time the virus genes they integrate into the human DNA are for the creation of more viruses that enter and infect other cells by the same process.

Antiretrovirals target Reverse Transcriptase and other "building tool" enzymes that allow for HIV RNA to become DNA. This is a crucial step as our bodies would not allow integration between our DNA and a virus RNA and we have natural functions that break down RNA (RNAses). Therefore it is common for antiretrovirals to be used as they are the main drugs involved in stopping the potential spread of infection.

What's the relevance of this question to anything else being discussed? :f6:

Well. If it's a common thing to happen then my point stood that he was lucky.

If it's not common, then he really was the right man for the job.

@ Stereo: I found the answer online. Thank you for replying to my responses.

@OB3LISK: Most patients receive antiretrovirals who have HIV. HIV doesn't have virus DNA at all, but contains virus RNA and Reverse Transcriptase. After sneaking in their virus RNA into the cell, they use Reverse Transcriptase (kind of like a building tool) to use the virus RNA as a template to make virus DNA. Virus DNA is recognized by the cell and after using Integrase (integrated) to become part of the human cell DNA they are able to be constructed using the human body's natural production capabilities because they have essentially become recognized as human DNA by the internal processes in the cell. Most of the time the virus genes they integrate into the human DNA are for the creation of more viruses that enter and infect other cells by the same process.

Antiretrovirals target Reverse Transcriptase and other "building tool" enzymes that allow for HIV RNA to become DNA. This is a crucial step as our bodies would not allow integration between our DNA and a virus RNA and we have natural functions that break down RNA (RNAses). Therefore it is common for antiretrovirals to be used as they are the main drugs involved in stopping the potential spread of infection.

Oh. I see. Hmmmm I have to think about this, hold on F3.

Right so they gave antivirals to this guy. Then they took some of his cells/tissue that contained the virus infected cells in question and checked it for HIV-RNA. The Antivirals were successful in this regard and knocked the presence of the virus down to almost nothing which means that the current cells did not really have much of the virus present. Then what they did is that they grafted bone marrow from a donor that produced homozygous mutant red blood cells for a receptor that would normally allow the virus to enter the cell if it wasn't a mutant. These new red blood cells that were "immune" to the virus were not affected. Antiviral treatment was stopped and the cells were examined afterwards to see if the virus would spring up again. It did not.

Well. If it's a common thing to happen then my point stood that he was lucky.

If it's not common, then he really was the right man for the job.

The part you questioned however is standard treatment.
The only thing special this guy got was the stem cell transplant from someone with virtual natural immunity, which is obviously not standard.
You more or less ignored the leprechaun running past with a pot of gold to ask if raining was normal...

I understand that this guy successfully beat HIV, but couldn't they find the DNA code from that guy's red blood cells that make it immune to HIV? It would be more impressive if they found the code.

*cough* F3 Eos.

I understand that this guy successfully beat HIV, but couldn't they find the DNA code from that guy's red blood cells that make it immune to HIV? It would be more impressive if they found the code.

*cough* F3 Eos.

Red blood cells don't have DNA.

Actually not quite sure which cells were transferred to be honest. Assumed it was blood cells, but I could be wrong.

There could be some credibility... I'll explain briefly:

If he was in an advanced case of HIV where his immune system was completely or mostly compromised the virus could be weakened to a state where it was replicating more lowly and his body would have started producing antigens and antibodies, but without workable T-Cells there was nothing his body could do except slowly weaken down as the last of his T-Cells were wiped out.

The introduction of new bone marrow with the ability to produce healthy T-Cells that were not compromised could have acted as a catalyst to activate the antibodies and antigens to fight off the now weakening virus and possibly even wipe it out.

Add in antiviral medications like AZT and there is a possibility it could have completely eradicated the virus from his system using natural means with a few helper agents.

There could be some credibility...

Where was the credibility ever in doubt? :f6:

I've heard on various boards I read it could be a hoax or a publicity stunt that doesn't have any foundation or merit. Even some new agencies sounded skeptical at the results that were published.

I've heard on various boards I read it could be a hoax or a publicity stunt that doesn't have any foundation or merit. Even some new agencies sounded skeptical at the results that were published.

Sounds like I should be questioning someone else's credibility.

Just making a statement Fiel... He asked...

EDIT: Ignore this post.

Red blood cells don't have DNA.

There could be some credibility... I'll explain briefly:

If he was in an advanced case of HIV where his immune system was completely or mostly compromised the virus could be weakened to a state where it was replicating more lowly and his body would have started producing antigens and antibodies, but without workable T-Cells there was nothing his body could do except slowly weaken down as the last of his T-Cells were wiped out.

The introduction of new bone marrow with the ability to produce healthy T-Cells that were not compromised could have acted as a catalyst to activate the antibodies and antigens to fight off the now weakening virus and possibly even wipe it out.

Add in antiviral medications like AZT and there is a possibility it could have completely eradicated the virus from his system using natural means with a few helper agents.

How did they know that the guy who donated bone marrow was resistant to HIV? Did they...Test his cells directly by introducing them to HIV virus? Or did they just give the HIV victim without testing it, and it just so happened to work out?

How did they know that the guy who donated bone marrow was resistant to HIV? Did they...Test his cells directly by introducing them to HIV virus? Or did they just give the HIV victim without testing it, and it just so happened to work out?

You really need to learn to read the articles before asking things about them.

Doctors chose stem cells from an individual who had an unusual genetic profile: a mutation inherited from both parents that resulted in CD4 cells that lacked the CCR5 receptor. This mutation, called CCR5 delta 32 homozygosity, is present in less than 1% of Caucasians in northern and western Europe, and is associated with a reduced risk of becoming infected with HIV.

Oh wow. Lol sorry yeah I'll read it now F3.

That explains a lot, hmmmm.

Edit: Now that I read it F3 irl @ Eos, F7 at the neurological problems. I wonder how that happened.

Well that is interesting.

Antiretrovirals+CCR5 inhibitors could cure HIV then. Time to get cracking to find them f3.

Actually not quite sure which cells were transferred to be honest. Assumed it was blood cells, but I could be wrong.

It was obviously STEM CELLS.

/facepalm.

i'd go on further to say it was cloned marrow stem cells.

Just waiting till this guy turns in the a vampire and spreads Gods unstoppable wrath upon us all. F3.