Scientists Hail "Potential Cure for AIDS"...

[JackTwist]

Do you believe there will be a cure for AIDS developed in the next three years? This research sounds promising:

 

ARTICLE: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/24/potential-aids-cure-australia-hiv-protein_n_2543921.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular

 

 

[video=youtube_share;NSHkEpZ_zSU]

[Diverdan]

Thanks for posting. I had not see or heard of this before.... great promise, but many years before it would be ready for humans, if indeed it ever comes to that.

[RockCreekRunr]

I understand the new therapy aims to replace an HIV+ persons immune system with modify immune system. This modified immune system would be based on their own genetics but modified external to the body and then re-introduced to form a working but HIV resistant immune system. If this is correct (please let me know if I have misunderstood) I am curious as to why this treatment could not form an effective vaccine for an HIV- person.

[MsGuy]

Link is to a short report from Australia outlining how the proposed treatment would work.

 

I have no idea how accurate the reportage is. Newspapers generally have a poor batting average when it comes to getting science news straight.

 

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/queensland-researcher-david-harrich-develops-gene-therapy-which-could-stop-hiv-from-turning-deadly/story-e6freoof-1226554632040

 

http://resources1.news.com.au/images/2013/01/15/1226554/638969-hiv-graphic.jpg

 

graphic from article

[Xander]

I'm a part of an HIV study -- a few months ago they asked if I was willing to be injected with a form of HIV to be one of the first tested for a vaccine.

 

The downside: You show up as HIV+ on all of your tests after the shot.

 

So, no thanks, Emory University!

 

But if you're around Atlanta, definitely look up the InvolveMent study at Emory -- lots of good research going on, and free STD testing!

[seeker630]

I'm a part of an HIV study -- a few months ago they asked if I was willing to be injected with a form of HIV to be one of the first tested for a vaccine.

 

The downside: You show up as HIV+ on all of your tests after the shot.

 

So, no thanks, Emory University!

 

But if you're around Atlanta, definitely look up the InvolveMent study at Emory -- lots of good research going on, and free STD testing!

 

Sorry, but I'm confused. It sounds like you declined?

[Xander]

Sorry, but I'm confused. It sounds like you declined?

 

Yep. I am a part of one of the many HIV prevention studies going on at Emory right now. They were trying to get me to take part of another one seeing how my two-year commitment is almost up.

[gallahadesquire]

A similar thing happened to me when I was a resident at a Harvard Hostpital (Beth Miserable). I was vaccinated in a final study in 1980 and I seroconverted to Hepatitis B positive, but only the SURFACE antibody. The core and envelope were negative, due to the nature of the vaccine.

 

Now my caretakers have no idea what to do for me. I have since seroconverted negative for Hep B Surface, and they don't know if I need to have the whole series with recombinant Hep B (Mine was human-derived); another shot of Human Derived Hep B; or just rely on my immune system's memory for the surface antigen.

 

At the time I was still a blood donor. It was hard to explain the vaccination. I finally gave up.

 

Having received 7 units of blood in 2010, I hope I am well.

[Walker1]

I'm a part of an HIV study -- a few months ago they asked if I was willing to be injected with a form of HIV to be one of the first tested for a vaccine.

 

The downside: You show up as HIV+ on all of your tests after the shot.

 

So, no thanks, Emory University!

 

But if you're around Atlanta, definitely look up the InvolveMent study at Emory -- lots of good research going on, and free STD testing!

 

I am confused-they want to inject you with HIV and then test a vaccine on you?

 

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-DeOGxaSZKqU/TpKu0O0MjJI/AAAAAAAAAVs/nJf426bn3Ik/s1600/confused.jpg

[MsGuy]

I am confused-they want to inject you with HIV and then test a vaccine on you?

 

 

The vaccine would trigger the production of HIV specific antibodies, which is what the usual HIV tests look for. So the result is a false positive on those tests.

 

It is possible to test for the presence of the virus itself but that's expensive, somewhat difficult and almost never used except for research purposes or to check on viral load during therapy.

[+ Gar1eth]

The vaccine would trigger the production of HIV specific antibodies, which is what the usual HIV tests look for. So the result is a false positive on those tests.

 

It is possible to test for the presence of the virus itself but that's expensive, somewhat difficult and almost never used except for research purposes or to check on viral load during therapy.

 

That's why people who receive the vaccine are told not to get the routine HIV detection tests which are based on detecting antibodies to HIV. I'm assuming they either need to have a viral culture, HIV antigen testing, or HIV RNA or DNA testing.

 

Gman

[Jaker27]

That's why people who receive the vaccine are told not to get the routine HIV detection tests which are based on detecting antibodies to HIV. I'm assuming they either need to have a viral culture, HIV antigen testing, or HIV RNA or DNA testing.

 

Gman

I used to get the pcr test which tests for the virus itself. Allot of porn companies use this because it gives instant results and is 100% reliable.

[+ Gar1eth]

I used to get the pcr test which tests for the virus itself. Allot of porn companies use this because it gives instant results and is 100% reliable.

 

I may be wrong- but many of the tests I mentioned may be pcr tests. And pcr is not instantaneous. It stands for polymerase chain reaction. And those tests do not give immediate results.

 

Gman

[Walker1]

Well I hope it works out . Too many people still die from AIDS in all parts of the world. Just heard about a possible cure so many times before, that I am just cautious.

[Jaker27]

I may be wrong- but many of the tests I mentioned may be pcr tests. And pcr is not instantaneous. It stands for polymerase chain reaction. And those tests do not give immediate results.

 

Gman

Yeah, your right. I guess i was comparing it to the standard HIV testing back then which was slow compared to today. Plus, there was no 6 month window.

 

In any case, this stuff is exciting and just fascinating to me. It's no cure but it's damn near one. It will be just another virus that people carry that isn't potentially lethal. I also want to say that i totally agree with Walker. Allot of ups and downs over the years with all this. Yeah, cautious optimism is so right.

[Guest]

A similar thing happened to me when I was a resident at a Harvard Hostpital (Beth Miserable). I was vaccinated in a final study in 1980 and I seroconverted to Hepatitis B positive, but only the SURFACE antibody. The core and envelope were negative, due to the nature of the vaccine.

 

Now my caretakers have no idea what to do for me. I have since seroconverted negative for Hep B Surface, and they don't know if I need to have the whole series with recombinant Hep B (Mine was human-derived); another shot of Human Derived Hep B; or just rely on my immune system's memory for the surface antigen.

 

At the time I was still a blood donor. It was hard to explain the vaccination. I finally gave up.

 

Having received 7 units of blood in 2010, I hope I am well.

 

I fail to understand what your physicians seem to find so baffling. It sounds like you just received one of the first Hep B vaccines to come out, which was originally of human origin (nowadays recombinant vaccines are used). If you came out surface antibody positive, it means that the vaccine was successful, and that's the end of the story. In case of doubt, there's never (well, one can never say never in medicine, but just about never) any danger in giving an extra booster of vaccine, but it's certainly not a decision to fret about. If in doubt, get a booster shot. Hell, get two if you like. All children from babies to teenagers in the U.S. have been vaccinated for Hepatitis B for over 2 decades now, and being positive for Hep B surface antibody is not a barrier to donating blood. What is a barrier to donating blood in the U.S. (or Canada) is being a man who's had sex with another man even once since 1977! This completely asinine and outrageously outdated rule is still on the books (no longer the case in the U.K. or Mexico, however). So none of us can donate, but anyone on this forum who hasn't been vaccinated for Hepatitis B has rocks where his brain should be.

[Guest]

Originally Posted by Gar1eth

That's why people who receive the vaccine are told not to get the routine HIV detection tests which are based on detecting antibodies to HIV. I'm assuming they either need to have a viral culture, HIV antigen testing, or HIV RNA or DNA testing.

 

Gman

 

I used to get the pcr test which tests for the virus itself. Allot of porn companies use this because it gives instant results and is 100% reliable.

 

The PCR test looks for viral RNA and is highly sensitive for the presence of virus in the bloodstream. It looks for viral RNA (HIV doesn't have any DNA because it's a retrovirus), and will be positive weeks to months before any antibody test will show up positive. In fact, someone infected with HIV is at his most contagious before he develops antibodies and has a high viral load. An antigen is a part of a microbe which elicits an antibody--usually a protein or sometimes a polysaccharide, but generally not genetic material itself such as RNA or DNA. While an antigen test might be less time-consuming that a PCR test, antigen testing is rarely used for HIV because PCR testing is much more sensitive and reliable.

That being said, having a negative PCR test does NOT mean a person is not infected with HIV. In fact, successfully-treated HIV patients often have NO detectable virus with PCR testing (or antigen testing, if that were to be done). This does not mean the person is cured of HIV, merely that the virus is hidden inside the lymphocytes and not in the plasma/serum. While someone with a negative PCR is obviously a whole lot less contagious than someone with a high "viral load", it is probably still possible to contract HIV from an HIV-infected person with a negative PCR test. It would be inaccurate to call a negative PCR test 100% reliable to preclude an HIV infection. I don't think that a PCR test could be done "while you wait," although I think it could be possible to run the test within a matter of hours (most labs have a turnaround time of a few to several days).