French Study Finds 14 HIV infected adults have been functionally cured of their HIV Infections

  • MiamiRealJock

    Posts: 78

    Mar 15, 2013 10:05 PM GMT

    Just two weeks after US doctors announced a new-born baby was ‘functionally cured’ of HIV, it appears the same treatment has worked on 14 full-grown men and women. The discovery was made at the Pasteur Institute in France and the study reports that the 14 ‘functionally cured’ adults still have the deadly virus in their system, but the virus is so weak their own immune systems are easily able to keep it in check. Due to the patients receiving rapid treatment after early diagnosis, they are no longer are at risk of developing AIDS — the deadly second phase of the HIV infection.

    A spokesman for the institute said, “It’s not eradication, but they can clearly live without pills for a very long period of time.”

    The Pasteur Institute’s unit for regulation of retroviral infections study was led by Asier Sáez-Cirión, who studied a group of 70 people who began a course of antiretroviral drugs (ARVs) between 35 days and 10 weeks after becoming.........


    http://thegailygrind.com/2013/03/15/14-adults-cured-of-hiv-says-french-study/
  • Dominican_Gen...

    Posts: 379

    Mar 16, 2013 1:09 AM GMT
    More good news!
  • Medjai

    Posts: 2671

    Mar 16, 2013 1:24 AM GMT
    This is a lot of hype though.

    The baby case may have meant nothing. It was never confirmed that the child had HIV in the first place, only the mother. Not every child has the disease transmitted during pregnancy or birth.

    This one shows that these expletive are not cured, and are still vectors. It's a step, but it is not the cure suggested by the title.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 16, 2013 1:25 AM GMT
    Hope for the best!
  • PolaroidSwing...

    Posts: 1131

    Mar 16, 2013 1:31 AM GMT
    MiamiRealJock saidhttp://thegailygrind.com/2013/03/15/14-adults-cured-of-hiv-says-french-study/
  • great_scott

    Posts: 519

    Mar 16, 2013 2:20 AM GMT
    Lolz @ "functionally cured". Either you're cured or you're not.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 16, 2013 2:24 AM GMT
    Thanks for the info, this is great!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 16, 2013 2:24 AM GMT
    just finished reading it on another blog, what a great news.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 16, 2013 2:38 AM GMT
    Medjai saidThis is a lot of hype though.

    The baby case may have meant nothing. It was never confirmed that the child had HIV in the first place, only the mother. Not every child has the disease transmitted during pregnancy or birth.

    This one shows that these expletive are not cured, and are still vectors. It's a step, but it is not the cure suggested by the title.



    I don't think you understood the part where they tried the same treatment on HIV + adults and it seems to be working.
  • Medjai

    Posts: 2671

    Mar 16, 2013 2:42 AM GMT
    charlitos saidI don't think you understood the part where they tried the same treatment on HIV + adults and it seems to be working.


    Except it isn't. They aren't cured of HIV, they are just looking like they aren't a risk for AIDS anymore. They still carry the virus, and as such are still a vector.

    This isn't a cure as of yet, it's a treatment that looks like it might be successful.
  • calibro

    Posts: 8888

    Mar 16, 2013 2:51 AM GMT
    Medjai saidThis is a lot of hype though.

    The baby case may have meant nothing. It was never confirmed that the child had HIV in the first place, only the mother. Not every child has the disease transmitted during pregnancy or birth.

    This one shows that these expletive are not cured, and are still vectors. It's a step, but it is not the cure suggested by the title.


    no, the baby tested positive
  • Medjai

    Posts: 2671

    Mar 16, 2013 2:58 AM GMT
    calibro said
    no, the baby tested positive


    Apparently not:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/03/14/hiv-baby-cured-mississippi-child-exposed-infected-virus-dr-mark-siedner_n_2875074.html
  • calibro

    Posts: 8888

    Mar 16, 2013 3:05 AM GMT
    Medjai saidcalibro said
    no, the baby tested positive


    Apparently not:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/03/14/hiv-baby-cured-mississippi-child-exposed-infected-virus-dr-mark-siedner_n_2875074.html


    stop getting your info from crap sites like huff po

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/04/health/for-first-time-baby-cured-of-hiv-doctors-say.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

    "Dr. Hannah B. Gay, an associate professor of pediatrics, ordered two blood draws an hour apart to test for the presence of the virus’ RNA and DNA.

    The tests found a level of virus at about 20,000 copies per milliliter, fairly low for a baby. But since tests so early in life were positive, it suggests the infection occurred in the womb rather than during delivery, Dr. Gay said.

    Typically a newborn with an infected mother would be given one or two drugs as a prophylactic measure. But Dr. Gay said that based on her experience, she almost immediately used a three-drug regimen aimed at treatment, not prophylaxis, not even waiting for the test results confirming infection.

    Virus levels rapidly declined with treatment and were undetectable by the time the baby was a month old. That remained the case until the baby was 18 months old, after which the mother stopped coming to the hospital and stopped giving the drugs.

    When the mother and child returned five months later, Dr. Gay expected to see high viral loads in the baby. But the tests were negative.

    Suspecting a laboratory error, she ordered more tests. “To my greater surprise, all of these came back negative,” Dr. Gay said.

    Dr. Gay contacted Dr. Katherine Luzuriaga, an immunologist at the University of Massachusetts, who was working with Dr. Persaud and others on a project to document possible pediatric cures. The researchers, sponsored by amfAR, the Foundation for AIDS Research, put the baby through a battery of sophisticated tests. They found tiny amounts of some viral genetic material but no virus able to replicate, even lying dormant in so-called reservoirs in the body."
  • Medjai

    Posts: 2671

    Mar 16, 2013 3:10 AM GMT
    calibro said
    Medjai saidcalibro said
    no, the baby tested positive


    Apparently not:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/03/14/hiv-baby-cured-mississippi-child-exposed-infected-virus-dr-mark-siedner_n_2875074.html


    stop getting your info from crap sites like huff po

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/04/health/for-first-time-baby-cured-of-hiv-doctors-say.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

    "Dr. Hannah B. Gay, an associate professor of pediatrics, ordered two blood draws an hour apart to test for the presence of the virus’ RNA and DNA.

    The tests found a level of virus at about 20,000 copies per milliliter, fairly low for a baby. But since tests so early in life were positive, it suggests the infection occurred in the womb rather than during delivery, Dr. Gay said.

    Typically a newborn with an infected mother would be given one or two drugs as a prophylactic measure. But Dr. Gay said that based on her experience, she almost immediately used a three-drug regimen aimed at treatment, not prophylaxis, not even waiting for the test results confirming infection.

    Virus levels rapidly declined with treatment and were undetectable by the time the baby was a month old. That remained the case until the baby was 18 months old, after which the mother stopped coming to the hospital and stopped giving the drugs.

    When the mother and child returned five months later, Dr. Gay expected to see high viral loads in the baby. But the tests were negative.

    Suspecting a laboratory error, she ordered more tests. “To my greater surprise, all of these came back negative,” Dr. Gay said.

    Dr. Gay contacted Dr. Katherine Luzuriaga, an immunologist at the University of Massachusetts, who was working with Dr. Persaud and others on a project to document possible pediatric cures. The researchers, sponsored by amfAR, the Foundation for AIDS Research, put the baby through a battery of sophisticated tests. They found tiny amounts of some viral genetic material but no virus able to replicate, even lying dormant in so-called reservoirs in the body."


    This is interesting...

    My original source was actually my microbiology prof. The article was just a google search. He'd be interested to read this. Thanks for the correction.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 16, 2013 5:11 AM GMT
    I agree this is yet another step in the right direction to hopefully and finally find a bonafide cure that would eradicate the HIV virus which in turn would prevent AIDS from even getting into a body.

    However, I don't think it serves any good purpose to say that someone or a group of people are "functionally cured" when no cure has been created or found. The baby and these folks still have the HIV virus in there systems. At best, they are undetectable which DOES NOT mean they can not transmit to someone else. When that is determine, then the word CURE can be used. Until then, it is nothing nothing more than hopeful hype.

    I hope that all of this means we are close to a cure, but until then, everyone should continue to operate in Safe mode, IMHO.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 16, 2013 5:48 AM GMT
    Medjai said
    charlitos saidI don't think you understood the part where they tried the same treatment on HIV + adults and it seems to be working.


    Except it isn't. They aren't cured of HIV, they are just looking like they aren't a risk for AIDS anymore. They still carry the virus, and as such are still a vector.

    This isn't a cure as of yet, it's a treatment that looks like it might be successful.


    And that is exactly the same results they expected on the minor where they clearly explained they never hoped for an absolute cure. So I still dont understand where you are trying to get at by questioning the results on the first subject which were clearly replicated successfully until now. What you said was:

    "The baby case may have meant nothing. It was never confirmed that the child had HIV in the first place, only the mother. Not every child has the disease transmitted during pregnancy or birth"

    So according to you the child might not have had the virus but the exact same effects replicated on this child which was a “functional cure”, meaning it is in long-term remission, is the exact same results they got on these early diagnosed and treated adults. If the method tried on the child was not effective, real or based on a false diagnosis then as a result it would not have worked on these HIV adults either, but it did, in pretty much the exact same way. How do you explain that the cure or functional cure tried on a child without HIV actually happened to be a true functional cure for adults with HIV?

    I know I repeated myself but I just want to make sure you truly understand how logically flawed your whole argument was.
  • Medjai

    Posts: 2671

    Mar 16, 2013 5:52 AM GMT
    charlitos saidAnd that is exactly the same results they expected on the minor where they clearly explained they never hoped for an absolute cure. So I still dont understand where you are trying to get at by questioning the results on the first subject which were clearly replicated successfully until now. What you said was:

    "The baby case may have meant nothing. It was never confirmed that the child had HIV in the first place, only the mother. Not every child has the disease transmitted during pregnancy or birth"

    So according to you the child might not have had the virus but the exact same effects replicated on this child which was a “functional cure”, meaning it is in long-term remission, is the exact same results they got on these early diagnosed and treated adults. If the method tried on the child was not effective, real or based on a false diagnosis then as a result it would not have worked on these HIV adults either, but it did, in pretty much the exact same way. How do you explain that the cure or functional cure tried on a child without HIV actually happened to be a true functional cure for adults with HIV?

    I know I repeated myself but I just want to make sure you truly understand how logically flawed your whole argument was.


    1) I've already been corrected. Over and one with.

    2) you really need to learn what cure means. Thus far, only two people in history have been considered cured of HIV. These 14 people have not been cured of HIV. They have received the most effective treatment results to date, but it is still a far cry from a cure.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 16, 2013 5:52 AM GMT
    ErikTaurean saidI agree this is yet another step in the right direction to hopefully and finally find a bonafide cure that would eradicate the HIV virus which in turn would prevent AIDS from even getting into a body.

    However, I don't think it serves any good purpose to say that someone or a group of people are "functionally cured" when no cure has been created or found. The baby and these folks still have the HIV virus in there systems. At best, they are undetectable which DOES NOT mean they can not transmit to someone else. When that is determine, then the word CURE can be used. Until then, it is nothing nothing more than hopeful hype.

    I hope that all of this means we are close to a cure, but until then, everyone should continue to operate in Safe mode, IMHO.


    I believe that with such a low presence of the virus it is really unlikely to be transmitted during sex. If this is correct then this functional cure, while technically is not a cure, it will function just like a real cure would for the most part.
  • Medjai

    Posts: 2671

    Mar 16, 2013 5:53 AM GMT
    charlitos saidI believe that with such a low presence of the virus it is really unlikely to be transmitted during sex. If this is correct then this functional cure, while technically is not a cure, it will function just like a real cure would for the most part.


    Cool. I'm glad your completely unqualified beliefs carry weight... icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 16, 2013 5:57 AM GMT
    Medjai said
    charlitos said
    Medjai said
    charlitos saidI don't think you understood the part where they tried the same treatment on HIV + adults and it seems to be working.


    Except it isn't. They aren't cured of HIV, they are just looking like they aren't a risk for AIDS anymore. They still carry the virus, and as such are still a vector.

    This isn't a cure as of yet, it's a treatment that looks like it might be successful.


    And that is exactly the same results they expected on the minor where they clearly explained they never hoped for an absolute cure. So I still dont understand where you are trying to get at by questioning the results on the first subject which were clearly replicated successfully until now. What you said was:

    "The baby case may have meant nothing. It was never confirmed that the child had HIV in the first place, only the mother. Not every child has the disease transmitted during pregnancy or birth"

    So according to you the child might not have had the virus but the exact same effects replicated on this child which was a “functional cure”, meaning it is in long-term remission, is the exact same results they got on these early diagnosed and treated adults. If the method tried on the child was not effective, real or based on a false diagnosis then as a result it would not have worked on these HIV adults either, but it did, in pretty much the exact same way. How do you explain that the cure or functional cure tried on a child without HIV actually happened to be a true functional cure for adults with HIV?

    I know I repeated myself but I just want to make sure you truly understand how logically flawed your whole argument was.


    1) I've already been corrected. Over and one with.

    2) you really need to learn what cure means. Thus far, only two people in history have been considered cured of HIV. These 14 people have not been cured of HIV. They have received the most effective treatment results to date, but it is still a far cry from a cure.


    1) You replied to my post, so i gave you the courtesy of replying to yours.

    2) I think I tired the term 'functional cure' on my last post. It is also the exact same term used all along on this thread from the title to the quoted article. Nobody said it was a cure so no its not a cure but it will definitely reduce the risks and side effects of contracting HIV along with the risks of transmitting said virus.
  • Medjai

    Posts: 2671

    Mar 16, 2013 6:00 AM GMT
    charlitos said1) You replied to my post, so i gave you the courtesy of replying to yours.

    2) I think I tired the term 'functional cure' on my last post. It is also the exact same term used all along on this thread from the title to the quoted article. Nobody said it was a cure so no its not a cure but it will definitely reduce the risks and side effects of contracting HIV along with the risks of transmitting said virus.


    So why not use the more accurate term of treatment instead of the media sensationalized, and conceptually inaccurate, term of functional cure?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 16, 2013 6:04 AM GMT
    Medjai said
    charlitos saidI believe that with such a low presence of the virus it is really unlikely to be transmitted during sex. If this is correct then this functional cure, while technically is not a cure, it will function just like a real cure would for the most part.


    Cool. I'm glad your completely unqualified beliefs carry weight... icon_rolleyes.gif


    I read that somewhere but I could not find the source, that is why I used the words "believe", "unlikely", "if this is correct". It is extremely obvious that I had set myself up for correction(with source not just bitching like you did there) if what I was saying was either wrong or inaccurate. Very different from a stance coming from those who think to be "qualified" and throw phrases such as "This is a lot of hype", "never confirmed" and "except it isn't" only to have to admit they were wrong.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 16, 2013 6:11 AM GMT
    Medjai said
    charlitos said1) You replied to my post, so i gave you the courtesy of replying to yours.

    2) I think I tired the term 'functional cure' on my last post. It is also the exact same term used all along on this thread from the title to the quoted article. Nobody said it was a cure so no its not a cure but it will definitely reduce the risks and side effects of contracting HIV along with the risks of transmitting said virus.


    So why not use the more accurate term of treatment instead of the media sensationalized, and conceptually inaccurate, term of functional cure?


    Because there has been(for years) actual research based on finding a functional cure for HIV before this treatment was actually successful. You seem to have a personal problem with such term, complain to the ones who introduced it, everyone else knows what is being talked about.
  • 1blind_dog

    Posts: 376

    Mar 16, 2013 6:22 AM GMT
    Def leaning toward Medjai's side right now. Round two, GO!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 16, 2013 6:25 AM GMT
    1blind_dog saidDef leaning toward Medjai's side right now. Round two, GO!


    Come_to_the_DarkSide_by_sali666.jpg