A "cure" for AIDS?

[Shockeye]

I read this at the New Scientist today.

A report detailing a controversial “cure” for HIV, as well as a vaccine that prevents against infection with the virus, has been published in a leading scientific journal.

The "cure", or therapeutic vaccine, was developed from the blood of HIV patients. It appeared to clear the deadly virus from 20 people with HIV, claims a report by Jeremiah Abalaka at the Medicrest Specialist Hospital in Gwagwalada, Abuja in Nigeria. A therapeutic vaccine aims to bolster the immune response of a person already infected with a disease, to reduce or stop progression.

Needless to say, there's a bit of skepticism surrounding this latest claim. It's an interesting read nonetheless.

To test the preventive vaccine, he says he inoculated himself before injecting himself with HIV-positive blood on six separate occasions. He says he did not contract the virus. He then tested the vaccine on about 300 HIV-negative people and says none have yet developed the infection, as far as he knows.

I love people who test things on themselves. There's no way they could be biased.

[ajax34i]

What leading scientific journal was that exactly?

Sounds so much like a hoax...

[Shockeye]

Ray Spier, editor of Vaccine[/b], defends his decision to publish the findings in an editorial accompanying the report. “Time is short and the prevailing situation demands action,” he writes. “Desperate situations call for desperate measures. I believe that Abalaka has risen to this challenge.”

“I have chosen, against the advice of senior colleagues, to publish the report he produced,” he admits. Colleagues were concerned that Abalaka’s study did not meet western standards for science, Spier told New Scientist.

[Nebu]

A vaccine for AIDS has been in the works for years... sadly all of the attempts that I'm aware of have all met with severe limitations and relatively small successes.  

As for this report... if it were real, I would have seen it in Science, Nature, or JAMA.  None of those even suggest a hint of it.

[daveNYC]

The Nigerians have a vaccine for AIDS, all they need is for you to wire $5000 US into a numbered account so that they can ship samples to the WHO, or something.

[jpark]

Interesting... it is referred to as a "therapeutic" vaccine - which makes this claim even bolder.  That means its intended action is more than just prophylactive - and can be given post infection and will reverse the course of viral replication.

New Scientists is a Lay mag if I recall - but if you come across the link for the paper itself in an actual peer reviewed journal - maybe you could post it.

With reference to vaccines, some folks may find this interesting - this is a vaccine that encourages a patient's immune system to bind nicotine - which intermediate clinical data suggests helps aid smoking cessation:

http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=6354069

[plangent]

J. D. Shapely in the house.

[UD_Delt]

I don't know if this is legit or not but I have to imagine they have to be getting close to finding a way to deal with AIDS & HIV.

My uncle contracted HIV while working as a nurse and it turned into full blown AIDS. He was given about a year to live when he was first diagnosed over 6 years ago. Today, he's still with us. He's progressively gotten worse and lately has some pretty rough days but he's definately made it farther than his initial 1 year to live diagnosis. My Aunt (his wife who was also a nurse) had also been diagnosed with HIV at the same time and as far as I know is still feeling (and looking) perfectly healthy.

[Nebu]

I'm so sorry to hear about your aunt and uncle.  I can tell you that strides have been made which makes survivability considerably longer with HIV than it was 15-20 years ago.  The use of multidrug combinations with differing mechanisms of action has allowed us to maintain reasonable CD4 counts without seeing a jump in viral load.  Protease inhibitors, NNRTI's, NRTI's, and now the new fusion inhibitors all seem to be able to keep the virus fairly inactive for years... the biggest hurdle we now face in the treatment of HIV is in cost and compliance.  Taking 100+ pills a day for life is something that takes real dedication.

What I read about this report from Africa is dubious at best.  I think it's more a statement of propaganda aimed at giving people some hope than a real medical breakthrough.  This isn't to say that a vaccination isn't possible... indeed I think that if you consider the unique protein markers expressed constituitively on the surface of the virus it may be possible to produce a standard antibody/antigen treatment strategy.

[HaemishM]

Wouldn't it take the normal incubation period (which I understood to be something up to 7-10 years time) to determine if he'd been infected or not? And what kind of mad scientist is bugfuck insane enough to inject HIMSELF with the virus?

[Ironwood]

Wouldn't it take the normal incubation period (which I understood to be something up to 7-10 years time) to determine if he'd been infected or not? And what kind of mad scientist is bugfuck insane enough to inject HIMSELF with the virus?

The ones we fight against in almost every single FPS.

[Shockeye]

Not to make light of the seriousness of AIDS or HIV, but when I read about him injecting himself I had vision of Willem Dafoe in Spiderman.

[Rof]

Didn't the guy who worked out that ulcers were actually caused by a bacterial infection end up experimenting on himself?

Most institutions don't let you do this, of course. (Though I can't speak for Nigerian universities). I know that when I needed some human saliva to study, I wasn't allowed to just spit in a test tube, I had to fill in whole reams of medical ethics watchdog forms and get a bunch of students to do it, instead.

[DarkDryad]

I don't know if this is legit or not but I have to imagine they have to be getting close to finding a way to deal with AIDS & HIV.

My uncle contracted HIV while working as a nurse and it turned into full blown AIDS. He was given about a year to live when he was first diagnosed over 6 years ago. Today, he's still with us. He's progressively gotten worse and lately has some pretty rough days but he's definately made it farther than his initial 1 year to live diagnosis. My Aunt (his wife who was also a nurse) had also been diagnosed with HIV at the same time and as far as I know is still feeling (and looking) perfectly healthy.

Sorry to hear about them Delt. This is the exact reason Bubba here tossed nursing degree. I can cure computer viruses.

[Arcadian Del Sol]

thank god I didn't make a wisecrack.
It would have been just like me to do that.

[SirBruce]

Does anyone know how much genetic screening costs?  I know there are people who are naturally "immune" to the HIV virus because they lack the right binding receptor.  Instead of constantly getting my HIV test every 6-12 months, I'd be curious to know if I could just get a screening to see if I'm one of the lucky immune or not.  (Note: The immunity is apparrently not 100%, but very close.)

Bruce

[jpark]

Screens can be expensive depending upon the firm and the nature of the test.  Myriad Genetics test for a breast cancer gene (BRCA 1, 2) at least in Canada is about $700 for the test - but I am guessing - I forget the pricing.

In AIDS even though resistant humans are known - namely in Africa - I don't think there is any fix on the genetics behind how this is possible.  No doubt there are "target candidates" that might have come from this population - but nothing that I am aware that has even made it into clinical testing.

If anyone has heard of such a diagnostic in the clinic - I would be interested to know.

And to your question - even if the might be such a diagnostic in clinical testing - certainly I am not aware of any that have been approved.

[Jealous Deva]

Wouldn't it take the normal incubation period (which I understood to be something up to 7-10 years time) to determine if he'd been infected or not? And what kind of mad scientist is bugfuck insane enough to inject HIMSELF with the virus?

IIRC it takes 6 months or so for the virus to show up in normal tests and some of the more advanced and expensive ones can detect it sooner than that (a month or so maybe?)  So if he's got access to modern testing equipment which isn't really that big of a deal he could be reasonably sure he's not infected.  As far as effectiveness goes - if a theraputic vaccine was possible from using hiv infected blood I'd think in 10 years of testing and research someone would have found it.  Then again weirder shit has happened, and it's possible that being in africa this guy is using a different strain that might somehow be better suited for vaccine production than the ones in the US (perhaps a harmless varient that invades cells but doesn't kill them and prevents real HIV from properly invading, there are viruses in bacteria that work that way).

As far as genetic immunity goes, while it exists and is testable in theory I doubt anyone is going to be doing it commercially any time soon just for liability reasons.   After giving someone the "just fuck anyone you want, you're immune" test result you'd be screwed if somehow they ran into a variant or something they weren't immune to and then sued you.

[SirBruce]

Screens can be expensive depending upon the firm and the nature of the test.  Myriad Genetics test for a breast cancer gene (BRCA 1, 2) at least in Canada is about $700 for the test - but I am guessing - I forget the pricing.

In AIDS even though resistant humans are known - namely in Africa - I don't think there is any fix on the genetics behind how this is possible.  No doubt there are "target candidates" that might have come from this population - but nothing that I am aware that has even made it into clinical testing.

If anyone has heard of such a diagnostic in the clinic - I would be interested to know.

And to your question - even if the might be such a diagnostic in clinical testing - certainly I am not aware of any that have been approved.

Okay, did some more link digging.  The receptor I was talking about was the CCR5 gene sequence, and it appears the "delta 32" mutation has been mapped:

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2004/2/prweb107422.htm

And some research on tests for these and other AIDS mitigating factors has been done:

http://www.clinchem.org/cgi/content/full/46/1/24

I just want to know where I can get such a test in the US and for how much. :)

Bruce

[Ironwood]

 Instead of constantly getting my HIV test every 6-12 months,

What the fuck ?

[Arnold]

In AIDS even though resistant humans are known - namely in Africa - I don't think there is any fix on the genetics behind how this is possible.  No doubt there are "target candidates" that might have come from this population - but nothing that I am aware that has even made it into clinical testing.

And I thought the resistant ones were asymptomatic carriers, meaning they are unaffected by the virus, but could infect partners with it.

[SirBruce]

 Instead of constantly getting my HIV test every 6-12 months,

What the fuck ?

People who are sexually active should be tested regularly.  Even if your are monogamous, your partner may not be.  Although some places recommend getting tested as often as every 3 months (or monthly if you're a sex worker), 6 months is a pretty standard recommendation.  However, I'm a terrible procrastinator, so I don't often go but once a year.

Bruce

[UD_Delt]

People who are sexually active should be tested regularly. Even if your are monogamous, your partner may not be. Although some places recommend getting tested as often as every 3 months (or monthly if you're a sex worker), 6 months is a pretty standard recommendation. However, I'm a terrible procrastinator, so I don't often go but once a year.

I used to just make sure I gave blood every time the blood drive came to the office. While they won't diagnose you or anything they will send you a letter saying you should go see your doctor sometime SOON. That was how I discovered a while ago that I was having liver issues from taking too many pain killers (back issues) and drinking too often.

Now that I'm married it's less of a concern but I still try and give blood at least once in a while because it's a good thing to do.

[SirBruce]

<insert my famous blood donation rant here>

Bruce

[DarkDryad]

I dont know whats scarier that Bruce wants a test to keep him from having testing as often as he should or the fact that someone would acctually fuck him...... me=scared.

[Ezdaar]

Just to toss a different point of view into the discussion:

http://www.duesberg.com/

http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/

I'm about the last person who believes in conspiracy so I tend to ignore all that crap, however I do believe in incompetence and history repeating itself. I also believe in logic and actual science, which makes the above links quite interesting.

Also before anyone goes discredting them please check your credentials against theirs, my guess is they win.

[personman]

AIDs is caused by recreational drugs?

Sigh...

[Ezdaar]

One theory put forth by Duesberg, who incidentally knows a fuckton more about the issue than you.

However the point in posting said links is to give some of you a chance to look at a different theory. If you read it all and still think it's crap then you can say "Yes, I have read things contrary to the HIV->AIDS hypothesis and think it's crap". If you're like me and read this and go "Hmm, they have some valid points, we've poured 20 years of research and over a hundred billion dollars into this and have shit to show for it" then perhaps you'll want to investigate more. The thing that really put me on the fence with regards to this is Serge Lang in his book Challenges. Lang is an incredible mathematician from Yale with a hobby of calling shennanigans on poor science. He outlines the problems with current AIDS research in his book, check it out from the library.

Really though I wasn't trying to spark a debate here as I've said, merely disseminate information. I personally think the people linked to are more intelligent and informed than any of you so I'm going to listen to them, your choice is your own.

Also Bruce(and anyone else getting an HIV test), you may want to take this to your doctor with you:
http://www.aliveandwell.org/html/questioning/Antibody_Test_Certificate.pdf

[SirBruce]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS_reappraisal

Bruce

[toma levine]

Cliffs Notes on those sites plz

[Ezdaar]

Cliffs Notes on those sites plz

The one Bruce posted is essentially the Cliff notes of the whole debate. Thank you by the way Bruce, that's an excellent resource.

I think this quote sums up the question best:
"If there is evidence that HIV causes AIDS, there should be scientific documents which either singly or collectively demonstrate that fact, at least with a high probability. There is no such document." -- Kary Mullis, inventor of PCR, 1993 Nobel Prize in Chemistry

(PCR is one of the methods used to show HIV levels in a person)

[SirBruce]

And the counter-point would be:

"If I saw a man get hit by a truck and run over, and you asked, "Did you get the proof? Did the truck do it?" OK, it comes to something like that. Silly." -- Robert Gallo (Spin, Feb 1988)

Okay, so to sum up, there's strong evidence that HIV is responsible for, or at the very least highly coupled with, AIDS.  But there's no actual PROOF of that; the two could have a common source, or HIV may simply cause an immune response that allows some OTHER causal agent to induce AIDS.

However, many of these same arguments could be made of many other diseases.  Much of clinical medicine is based on correlation and inductive reasoing; actual "cause and effect" is very difficult to demonstrate in complex biological systems as opposed to simple objects in physical mechanics.

Bruce

[Ezdaar]

Okay I feel like a debate today.

Bruce:

The Gallo quote is ridiculous and misses the point. No one disagrees that AIDS is real and will kill you. The problem people have is that there is no good evidence that shows HIV causes AIDS or that HIV does anything meaningful. No one has been able to properly isolate HIV, no one can agree on a sequence for it, hell we don't even know how to detect it properly. ELISA and Western Blot tests specifically say on them that they're not meant to diagnose HIV since they can't meet FDA standards for a detection test. The primary reason HIV and AIDS are so closely linked is that the definition of AIDS states a test for HIV(ELISA or WB) must be positive in order for AIDS to occur. If you have all the symptoms of AIDS but test negative on an HIV test you have something else, unless of course you're in Africa at which point a cough is diagnosed as AIDS.

For those too lazy to dig it out, an article by Lang:
http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/slquestions.htm

It's long but raises a lot of excellent criticisms that I have yet to see a good response to.

edit: As to the clinical medicine claims, I bet if we put 20 years of research and umpteen billion dollars into it we would do just fine with other diseases. Fact is we know what causes tuberculosis and can isolate it. Insert your disease of choice for tuberculosis.

[SirBruce]

The primary reason HIV and AIDS are so closely linked is that the definition of AIDS states a test for HIV(ELISA or WB) must be positive in order for AIDS to occur.

I don't believe this statement is correct, since one of the strongest points of the AIDS reappraisal group is that there are a few cases of people with AIDS who don't have detectable levels of HIV.  The mainstream does not claim all of those people don't have AIDS, but rather that there are errors in HIV detection.

Bruce

PS - And way to mischaracterize the Gallo quote.  Gallo was equating the truck to HIV and the patient's injuries to AIDS.  So we have a bunch of injured people, and they all got hit by a truck.  But can we say the truck caused the injuries?  Obviously an analogy constructed to make the question seem ridiculous, but not in the way you portrayed it.

[Nebu]

edit: As to the clinical medicine claims, I bet if we put 20 years of research and umpteen billion dollars into it we would do just fine with other diseases. Fact is we know what causes tuberculosis and can isolate it. Insert your disease of choice for tuberculosis.

Ok, how about cancer, MD, MS, Parkinsons, Prion Diseases, Alzheimer's, ALS, etc.

We've thrown millions if not billions at these diseases and while we know a great deal more about them, we're really nowhere near a cure.  While I have never chatted with Deusberg, I have chatted with Mullis and I find that their points, while valid, do nothing to solve the issue.  It is important in science to have a system of checks and balances in order to make sure that  current theory is sound.  I don't see either of these groups doing much to prove their point and they have chosen to refute the current accepted view instead.  I'd like to see them use their collective minds to demonstrate definitively that HIV doesn't lead to AIDS rather than continue the current rhetoric.

As a cancer researcher myself, I personally believe that this issue will turn out like the tobacco debates of prior years.  It took a long time to prove causation between tobacco smoke and cancer and today there are still skeptics.  There is no doubt in my mind that the time to seroconvert has been lengthened since the introduction of HAART.  This suggests some connection between HIV viral loads and conversion to AIDS.  While I cannot prove that HIV leads to AIDS directly, I do feel that the evidence supporting this relationship is stronger than the evidence refuting it.  

If Deusberg can do the seminole experiments to provide adequate precident that HIV does not lead to AIDS, I'll be one of the first in line to shake his hand.  Until then he's just one side of a theoretical fence.  I think the money spent on HIV/AIDS research is largely well-spent and a good investment.  We learn about many diseases beyond just HIV/AIDS in the process and (in my opinion) any knowledge that improves our understanding of the disease process is good.