Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Child Thought To Be Cured of HIV Relapses, Tests Positive Again

Soulskill posted about 3 months ago | from the poor-kid dept.

Biotech 126

An anonymous reader writes: The Mississippi child, who was born with HIV passed from her mother, received HIV treatment for 18 months after her birth. In the course of over two years after the treatment, her blood indicated no trace of the virus or of HIV-specific antibodies, leading many to hope that she may have been cured completely. Earlier this month, however, the virus was detected again. Nearly 4 years old, the child is once more being given HIV treatment, and scientists are trying to figure out how she could have gone so long before relapsing.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

I hate to imagine it (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47430977)

I hate to imagine it....but reinfection?

Re:I hate to imagine it (5, Informative)

Major Blud (789630) | about 3 months ago | (#47431007)

When I first read about this on CNN the other day, the article stated that the child's mother had stopped giving her the anti-viral medication she was prescribed. There was no an explanation as to why.

Re:I hate to imagine it (4, Informative)

Major Blud (789630) | about 3 months ago | (#47431055)

Found the article:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/10/... [cnn.com]

"The child remained on antiretroviral drugs for approximately 18 months. Her mother then stopped administering the drugs for an unknown reason".

Re:I hate to imagine it (3, Informative)

mwvdlee (775178) | about 3 months ago | (#47431135)

GP implies stopping the drugs was the direct cause for the relapse.
The CNN article states the child was initially "functionally cured" a few months after stopping the drugs.
The facts us readers know, indicate neither correlation nor causation between stopping drugs and the relapse.

Re:I hate to imagine it (5, Insightful)

i kan reed (749298) | about 3 months ago | (#47431199)

Oh this is the most intellectually lazy of bullshit.

Saying "Why would stopping treatment lead to a relapse?" as if there was no trivially understood relationship there. It's just... silly. I mean, come on bro, no one wants to jump to conclusions, but this is like saying "I stopped watering my houseplant, and at some point, it died. We don't know there's any relationship there."

Re:I hate to imagine it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47431275)

Why would stopping treatment lead to a relapse?

Here's a better question: "why would stopping treatment lead to no relapse for 2.5 years, then suddenly a relapse?"

Since that asks why what actually happened, happened.

Re:I hate to imagine it (4, Informative)

i kan reed (749298) | about 3 months ago | (#47431395)

Because HIV has numerous properties that allow it to remain dormant in a host for a long time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV#Replication_cycle [wikipedia.org]

Re:I hate to imagine it (1)

I'm New Around Here (1154723) | about 3 months ago | (#47431957)

I agree with your view.

I thought one of the properties of viruses is that they often stay dormant for a long time, and then re-emerge.

Just because she had 'no signs' of infection doesn't mean there weren't a remaining few viruses waiting for the medicine regimen to end.

Re:I hate to imagine it (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47432677)

True, but HIV usually doesn't collectively decide to stay dormant in EVERY cell at once.

Either some unknown signalling pathway caused the HIV to stay inactive, or it was confined to a reservior that didn't somehow didn't leak for several years. Or she WAS cured, then reinfected.

The best explaination I can think of:

The girl was treated before HIV could infect more than a handfull of T-cells. (Or else something unknown killed all but a handful). All of these few stay dormant, until by bad luck the girl encounters an immunogen that activates one of them. Infection proceeds as normal.

Re:I hate to imagine it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47431429)

Maybe it took that long for the very-suppressed viral load to get back to detectable levels? Maybe something to do with childhood immune systems? Im no virologiest or biologist but I'd start looking for a proximate cause rather than a distal cause.....

Re:I hate to imagine it (1)

dywolf (2673597) | about 3 months ago | (#47431475)

the problem is thats not exactly what happened.
this child was not continually observed and studied.
the mother is apparently not only been bad (and im not passing judgement in saying that) about maintaining the treatment, but also about maintaining any contact or followup with the doctors who did the treatment.

its like walking in and out of a movie every few minutes for minutes at a time, and trying to figure out what happened while you wre out.

Re:I hate to imagine it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47431371)

Modded you up. I have a friend that operates much in the same way as GP. Smart guy, but refuses to connect the dots for lack of absolute evidence. As long as there is a wiggle word or technicality he can hang on to, he will not openly admit the possibility of a thing that otherwise seems entirely reasonable.

Re:I hate to imagine it (5, Funny)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | about 3 months ago | (#47432015)

... this is like saying "I stopped watering my houseplant, and at some point, it died. We don't know there's any relationship there."

My favorite line from a college Logic book: "Breathing causes death. Everyone who has died was an habitual breather."

Re:I hate to imagine it (2)

i kan reed (749298) | about 3 months ago | (#47432233)

Strictly speaking, the assertion mwvdlee makes is logical. You can't affirm the consequent like that. But it's completely unreasonable in that it freely disregards other available(and in fact trivially commonplace) information about how diseases, and HIV in particular, work.

Re:I hate to imagine it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47432295)

So I take it you want to continue to destroy her immune system as that is what "testing" for HIV looks for - anti-bodies that attack HIV.

Re:I hate to imagine it (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47432697)

They take the blood OUT of the patient before they test it that way, moron.

Re:I hate to imagine it (-1)

alexander_686 (957440) | about 3 months ago | (#47431261)

You are missing the point. The reason why this was news was that the baby had disappeared and stopped taking the drugs.
1. Baby has HIV, is given massive amount of drugs.
2. Baby disappears for 18 months, stops taking drugs.
3. Baby reappears after 18 months, we can't find HIV in the baby.
Ergo the early treatment with drugs cured the baby. Or that is what we thought. HIV is very good at hiding in odd parts of the body and popping out when nobody is looking.

Re:I hate to imagine it (5, Informative)

IMightB (533307) | about 3 months ago | (#47431399)

No, if you RTFA, it goes:

1) Baby has HIV, given retrovirals.
2) Mother brings in baby for regular checkups/tratments for 18 months
3) Mother and Baby "dissappear" for a few months
4) When baby is brought back in, it tests negative for HIV
5) For about 2 years the baby tests HIV free
6) Baby tests HIV positive again at ~4.5 years of age.
7) We suffer from your misinformed post.

Re:I hate to imagine it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47431483)

no, you RTFA.
it does not state that the child was tested for 2 years as you state in your number "5".
there is another gap in the child's patient history between it being tested negative ("4") and it testing positive ("6").

Re:I hate to imagine it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47431489)

GP doesn't imply anything. He merely offers that the anti-retroviral drugs were discontinued. It *does* bring up an interesting talking point, that the cessation of drugs *may* have been involved in the relapse, as much as you want to fight that logical connection. The fact is that treatment was discontinued, so we don't know, and we will never know, whether she would have relapsed if she had remained treated. But anyone with half a brain can postulate that *maybe* it is a point worth considering.

This is where you say "I never denied that the cessation of treatment could be related to the relapse." And you would be right. However, you do a disservice to yourself and the rest of us by admitting that you had the insight all along to engage meaningfully but chose not to.

Re:I hate to imagine it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47432761)

It would be very unusual for her to relapse while on modern retroviral drugs. They reduce HIV loads very reliably.

The question is whether drug treatment was actually responsible for the temporary CURE, and whether the timing of relapse was simply a delay after drug treatment, or caused by some other event entirely.

Re:I hate to imagine it (2)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about 3 months ago | (#47432401)

From this blog post [scienceblogs.com] it sounds like the mother taking her off the drugs was what prompted the initial finding: the doctors would have been unethical to tell someone to take their HIV + kid off antivirals because there's a chance they may have killed all the viruses.

As far as why, the cocktail isn't super convenient. It's a bunch of pills taken throughout the day. Getting a toddler to take multiple pills a day every day is probably a very frustrating thing. I'd imagine the mother (who didn't have any prenatal care and didn't realize she was HIV positive until after birth) doesn't have the best health insurance, so the out of pocket expenses probably really quickly added up.

I mean, that's obviously all small potatoes compared to developing drug-resistant HIV and full blown AIDS and dying. Not excusing her actions, just saying it's understandable.

Re:I hate to imagine it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47431071)

Probably because being in Mississippi, she got crap from all the people who thought she was horrible for infecting her child, or even having a child, and all of the paperwork required to get the care paid for by the state, and I wouldn't put it past her to be a bit apprehensive about it too.

Re:I hate to imagine it (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47431083)

There was no an explanation as to why.

Considering it's Mississippi, I'm going to go with "Because momma, she be a semi-illiterate piece of ghetto trash who tired of walking to the clinic. And the baby-daddy, he be in prison."

Re:I hate to imagine it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47431977)

Or he quite possibly died of HIV himself some time ago. Clearly he fathered a child upon her, she has HIV, passed it to her child, so therefore he has to have it now as well.

Re:I hate to imagine it (1)

slashdice (3722985) | about 3 months ago | (#47432279)

Fail [aidsmap.com] . Male to female infection is twice as likely as female to male infection. (That's also true for butt fucking).

If the father is known to have AIDS, it's more likely he passed it to her than vice versa. But we don't have enough information to make any conclusions. She may have acquired AIDS while shooting up a month before the baby was born.

Re:I hate to imagine it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47431169)

I think it was probably a misunderstanding because they purposely decided that medication was not needed. Adherence to medication is a big problem in general, and it's a really big problem for HIV because a lapse in medication can be enough to allow the virus to rebound with drug resistance mutations to one or more of the three drugs in the cocktail, making it more likely the virus can evolve to be resistant to all three drugs in the cocktail.

Re:I hate to imagine it (2)

Sockatume (732728) | about 3 months ago | (#47431191)

That's what originally excited the doctors: the kid was off her antiretrovirals for two years without relapse.

Re:I hate to imagine it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47431527)

False negatives? I'd switch labs.

Re:I hate to imagine it (2)

jellomizer (103300) | about 3 months ago | (#47431033)

I expect it is more of a case where they got the numbers down so low that the infection wouldn't register, perhaps hibernating in a nook in the body. After the virus stopped getting assaulted it was allow to grow and infect again.
 

Re:I hate to imagine it (2)

gregor-e (136142) | about 3 months ago | (#47431507)

As wikipedia assures us (emphasis added):

A retrovirus is a single-stranded RNA virus that stores its nucleic acid in the form of an mRNA genome (including the 5' cap and 3' PolyA tail) and targets a host cell as an obligate parasite. Once inside the host cell cytoplasm the virus uses its own reverse transcriptase enzyme to produce DNA from its RNA genome, the reverse of the usual pattern, thus retro (backwards). This new DNA is then incorporated into the host cell genome by an integrase enzyme, at which point the retroviral DNA is referred to as a provirus. The host cell then treats the viral DNA as part of its own genome, translating and transcribing the viral genes along with the cell's own genes, producing the proteins required to assemble new copies of the virus. It is difficult to detect the virus until it has infected the host. At that point the infection will persist indefinitely.

Re:I hate to imagine it (2)

DigiShaman (671371) | about 3 months ago | (#47431909)

Meaning the virus can never be eliminated, but only reduced asymptotically; thus the symptoms are asymptomatic.

Re:I hate to imagine it (5, Informative)

barlevg (2111272) | about 3 months ago | (#47431073)

The Washington Post story [washingtonpost.com] states:

Researchers confirmed through DNA sequencing that the infection in the child is not a new infection, but was the one passed from the mother.

Re:I hate to imagine it (1)

Wycliffe (116160) | about 3 months ago | (#47431215)

The Washington Post story [washingtonpost.com] states:

Researchers confirmed through DNA sequencing that the infection in the child is not a new infection, but was the one passed from the mother.

If the reinfection is also from the mother (which is what is most likely) then how can they tell whether it is the original infection or a reinfection
from the mother as presumably it's still the same strain in the mother.

Re:I hate to imagine it (2)

gstoddart (321705) | about 3 months ago | (#47431293)

If the reinfection is also from the mother (which is what is most likely) then how can they tell whether it is the original infection or a reinfection
from the mother as presumably it's still the same strain in the mother.

I *think* it tends to mutate when it spreads.

If it has the virus exact same DNA as the mother (or at least the same strain the child already had), then it likely means that this is the strain the child got while in utero. If it was a fresh infection it would be slightly different from the original infection.

It sounds like the people who study these things and know what they mean have ruled it out as being a re-infection, but the same infection which has re-emerged.

I'm going to go with the people who study these things.

Re:I hate to imagine it (1)

arth1 (260657) | about 3 months ago | (#47431477)

If the reinfection is also from the mother (which is what is most likely)

How can you say that is most likely?
HIV does not spread easily. The panic times when people wore gloves and masks around the HIV infected are long gone, thankfully. The HIV virus spreading to family members is quite rare.
Diseases staying dormant for a long time is, however, not unusual at all.
So again, on what basis do you draw the conclusion that a re-infection is most likely?

Re:I hate to imagine it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47431609)

Not that re-infection is the most likely cause, but that if re-infection is what happened, then the mother is the most likely vector, due to the near constant contact.

Re:I hate to imagine it (1)

wiwa (905999) | about 3 months ago | (#47431221)

Researchers confirmed through DNA sequencing that the infection in the child is not a new infection, but was the one passed from the mother.

Well, if it was a reinfection then I would expect the mother (or possibly father) to be the likely source. There are all kinds of ways that a mother could accidentally pass on the virus to a young child, especially if her infection isn't well-managed and the child isn't on anti-retrovirals. Could they tell the difference between the original infection and a reinfection if they came from the same source? I can't see how they could.

Re:I hate to imagine it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47431427)

There are all kinds of ways that a mother could accidentally pass on the virus to a young child
 
Which ways are these?

Re: I hate to imagine it (1)

halo1982 (679554) | about 3 months ago | (#47431565)

Breast milk for one.

Re: I hate to imagine it (1)

barlevg (2111272) | about 3 months ago | (#47431637)

Post 18 months? Possible, but unless the mother was actively trying to reinfect her kid...

Re:I hate to imagine it (1)

Sique (173459) | about 3 months ago | (#47431469)

By looking at the genetic deviation so far. It can tell you when the both virus tribes have split. If this were a reinfection, it will be genetically even more close to the one found in the mother. If it were an infection from another source, it will be far more different.

Re:I hate to imagine it (1)

slashdice (3722985) | about 3 months ago | (#47432299)

A lot of kids are sexually active as early as 3 or 4 years old these days. Some schools teach kids about condoms in first grade. Maybe that's not early enough.

Re:I hate to imagine it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47432009)

That doesn't prove it is not a new infection. The mother could have decided to infect the girl again. In other case, the father reinfected his son when he decided to continue raping his son. These people are sick so I wouldn't put anything past them.

Re:I hate to imagine it (1)

Lord Lemur (993283) | about 3 months ago | (#47431077)

Well, we know Mom is degenerate in some capacity. My first thought was intentional exposure by Mom.

Re:I hate to imagine it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47431147)

Well, we know Mom is degenerate in some capacity. My first thought was intentional exposure by Mom.

Having aids doesn't make you degenerate.

Granted I didn't read any of the articles, so maybe there is another reason you say that she is degenerate.

Re:I hate to imagine it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47431297)

Because his skydaddy only infects gays and drug users with HIV, q.e.d.

Re:I hate to imagine it (3, Insightful)

Lord Lemur (993283) | about 3 months ago | (#47431721)

No, because she abandon treating her child for HIV for 18 Months.

Re:I hate to imagine it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47432689)

Actually it is gays and drug users that mainly infect their own populations. If you don't practice gay sex or illegal drug use your risk goes way down.

I seem to recall that there is some cultural documentation that frowns on that behavior.

Re:I hate to imagine it (1)

Lord Lemur (993283) | about 3 months ago | (#47431735)

Yeah, failing to persue life saving medical care for your child for 18 months indicates that she isn't the best kind person.

Re:I hate to imagine it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47431239)

+1 Morbidly possible. (it was Mississippi....)

Re:I hate to imagine it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47431741)

I hate to imagine it....but reinfection?

That would be a huge problem because it's politically incorrect to suggest that HIV can be contracted from simple contact.
The government assures you that HIV can be acquired ONLY through exchanging blood through sex, sharing needles, or giving birth.
You are perfectly safe sharing a cubicle, bathroom, and lunchroom with your HIV infected co-workers.

Re: I hate to imagine it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47432273)

You, Sir, are a fool.

Re: I hate to imagine it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47432423)

That would be a huge problem because it's politically incorrect to suggest that HIV can be contracted from simple contact.
The government assures you that HIV can be acquired ONLY through exchanging blood through sex, sharing needles, or giving birth.
You are perfectly safe sharing a cubicle, bathroom, and lunchroom with your HIV infected co-workers.

You, Sir, are a fool.

Explain please.
I made three statements. Which of those do you disagree with, and why?

Re: I hate to imagine it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47432673)

Actually, you only made one statement. The other two sentences are in juxtaposition.

Thus, it is your statement about political correctness that I take issue with: it's not a matter of it being "politically incorrect" to suggest that HIV cannot be transmitted via simple contact. It is verifiably and repeatedly incorrect.

under the gop system pre existing conditions (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47432857)

So the relapse will not be covered

One question (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47431019)

Has he been breastfed?

Re:One question (1)

barlevg (2111272) | about 3 months ago | (#47431081)

After 18 months? Unless the mom is Lysa Arryn...

Re:One question (1)

wiwa (905999) | about 3 months ago | (#47431461)

Breastfeeding beyond 18 months is pretty common and actually recommended by many health authorities. For example, in Canada the official guidelines recommend exclusive breastfeeding for the first six months, and extended breastfeeding up to at least two years of age.

Re:One question (1)

barlevg (2111272) | about 3 months ago | (#47431665)

Yeah, but the mother presumably knows that HIV is passed through breastmilk. So it seems unlikely she would continue to breastfeed longer than absolutely necessary (which, given the existence of formula, means the kid was almost certainly never breastfed).

Re:One question (1)

Lord Lemur (993283) | about 3 months ago | (#47431795)

It also seems unlikely that a rational parent would forgo medical treatment for their child for a year and a half. Or would have passed on the chance to prevent initial infection be seeking appropriate treatment during the pregnancy. Or not abandon treatment for another 2 years on a whim. You give her too much credit. She clearly isn't acting in her childs best intrests.

Re:One question (1)

barlevg (2111272) | about 3 months ago | (#47432019)

For 18 months you take your infant to a doctor who pumps her full of drugs, which, while curing her of a terrible disease, gives her horrible side-effects. Then the doctors tell you they think she's cured, but that they want to continue the debilitating drug regimen "just to be sure." Is it really so irrational to say, "No, screw that. My daughter's better now. No need to subject my baby to all this continual agony"? Not saying this is what happened, but since you don't know the specifics and circumstances any better than I do, how about we just forego judgement on this woman?

Re:One question (1)

Lord Lemur (993283) | about 3 months ago | (#47432323)

But that isn't really what the article outlines. What it does say is that normally upon cesation of retrovirals that the HIV Infection comes back in weeks. It shows that they posted they came to their conclusion that the child might be cured about 16 months ago. When the child would have been 3. After the child re-emerged from the 18 month black out. It never states in there that a Doctor said anything nearly as unfounded or reackless as, "Inspite of this never happening before in the history of human endevor, we are pretty sure your 18 month old is cured." One would expect that they would have been informed that retrovirals are for life, they are not a cure they are a treatment.

Only after the irrational cessation of treatment, and then the followup testing later was there cause to think, how ever fleeting, that she was cured.

Inserted in her DNA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47431023)

Its well known that HIV inserts itself into the host's DNA. So it can't be removed and can become activated whenever.

At least you can survive Ebola.

Re:Inserted in her DNA (1)

Sique (173459) | about 3 months ago | (#47431487)

It is wellknown that every retrovirus does this, and still the most of them can be removed (mostly by the immune system killing off the cells it has infected). But you would still get antibodies pointing to the existance of the virusDNA.

Re: Inserted in her DNA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47432409)

You seem to imagine that all of the cells in your body become infected simultaneously, or that there is one master copy of DNA that once tampered with causes instantaneous and irreversible damage. Either understanding is completely flawed.

Every cell in your body is a little bundle of DNA, separate from all the others.

Simplistically, HIV attaches to individual cells. Those cells are infected and become capable of infecting other cells. The number of infected cells is a function of time.

It's because of this that PEP has such a high success rate: early intervention provides the highest probability that you kill off any and all of the infected cells before you reach critical mass beyond which full eradication appears impossible (due to the virus's ability to hide in wells that aren't the bloodstream).

Sorry, kid (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47431025)

Also, there's no Santa Claus.

Re:Sorry, kid (1)

I'm New Around Here (1154723) | about 3 months ago | (#47432035)

Hello!! Spoiler alert!

Asshole.

The answer is simple! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47431101)

The little girl's mom RE-INFECTED her!

Re:The answer is simple! (1)

Suiggy (1544213) | about 3 months ago | (#47431463)

This. The mother was jealous her daughter escaped her own fate.

Get it back from mom (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47431131)

Mothers kiss their children right?

Re:Get it back from mom (1)

myoparo (933550) | about 3 months ago | (#47431551)

Yeah except HIV is not communicable via saliva, sorry.

dumb clickbait article (2)

beltsbear (2489652) | about 3 months ago | (#47431153)

Why is this at all surprising? We know how HIV works and that it can hide in cells. So when someone is 'cleared' of it you can never be sure. The longer the drugs are taken increases the chances of clearing any dormant HIV (when it emerges). One can statistically figure out the best time to stop the treatment and many people could be free from reinfection for life but it is not a 100% certainty.

The only news is that a mother stopped the drugs too early.

Re:dumb clickbait article (1)

Sockatume (732728) | about 3 months ago | (#47431543)

It's surprising because she wasn't clear of the disease before she went off her medication, and then went two years without a relapse.

Re:dumb clickbait article (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 3 months ago | (#47431633)

Why is this at all surprising?

Who says it's surprising? "Surprising" is not a necessary property for a story to make the news.

Re:dumb clickbait article (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about 3 months ago | (#47432411)

The initial finding of "baby cured of HIV" was surprising for the reasons you just mentioned. You're suggesting the story shouldn't be updated because it's not surprising? Well, unfortunately, you'll get your wish. I'm pretty sure people will forget this "Nevermind, no miracle after all" and will use the initial story as a reason to go off their meds.

Re: dumb clickbait article (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47432445)

The mother didn't know, or wasn't on therapy at the time of the child's birth. The mother's viral load was high enough to infect the child during the birthing process (ie when there was a lot of blood around).

Answer is obvious. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47431175)

The child is gay and was smote by our loving God.

News? (2)

StikyPad (445176) | about 3 months ago | (#47431189)

The more shocking part of this article isn't that the patient wasn't cured of a disease for which we have no cure, but that anyone thought she was in the first place.

Re:News? (2)

Tx (96709) | about 3 months ago | (#47431393)

Umm, they couldn't find any trace of the HIV virus, or specific antibodies to it. It seems reasonable to hope that someone is cured of a disease if you can't find any trace of said disease in their body. And it's not like they jumped the gun on it, she was supposed to be on anti-viral drugs because they weren't sure the virus was gone.

She didnt relapse, it came back (1)

Gothmolly (148874) | about 3 months ago | (#47431193)

There's a difference. Given that the human body sucks at fighting HIV, its not as if she did something and 'relapsed', the virus merely came back out of hiding from wherever it lurks (marrow, lymph, spleen, etc).

It's like how animals don't "evolve", rather then ones who DONT change simply die. No animal DECIDES to suddenly grow fins or stripes.

Re:She didnt relapse, it came back (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47431263)

It's like how animals don't "evolve", rather then ones who DONT change simply die. No animal DECIDES to suddenly grow fins or stripes.

This is as saying "no apple falls, it gets accelerated by gravity."

Re:She didnt relapse, it came back (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47431699)

This is as saying "no apple falls, it gets accelerated by gravity."

Which would be correct, and popular understanding of science would be much improved if people spoke correctly.

Re:She didnt relapse, it came back (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47432731)

This is as saying "no apple falls, it gets accelerated by gravity."

Which would be correct, and popular understanding of science would be much improved if people spoke correctly.

I beg to differ. The apple neither falls nor is accelerated by gravity. It and the Earth merely follow the curvature of spacetime.

Re:She didnt relapse, it came back (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47432893)

Actually Earth doesn't. Well, the center does. But not the ground. The ground is propped up by the masses below it. Which is why the ground hits the apple.

Re:She didnt relapse, it came back (1)

MBGMorden (803437) | about 3 months ago | (#47431363)

It's like how animals don't "evolve", rather then ones who DONT change simply die.

Untrue - some (many) mutations are bad, and the ones that change are the ones that die.

Evolution occurs when a mutation is a) beneficial and b) significant enough that it allows an animal to survive longer than those without that mutation. Being alive longer means they breed more. Breeding generally passes on the mutation.

It really is quite random, and there is no guarantee that the animals that change are better. Indeed for an animal that's particularly well suited to an environment that hasn't changed in a long time there could be very little room for evolution to occur. Certain types of fish (like gar and bowfin) for example have survived for tens of millions of years with relatively minor evolutionary changes.

Re:She didnt relapse, it came back (1)

gigaherz (2653757) | about 3 months ago | (#47431509)

IIRC, there's proof that the cells can purposefully activate or deactivate certain genes, and those activations become more permanent in the offspring. So animals DO have some level of "purposeful" evolution over their lives, not just over thousands of generations and natural selection.

do7l (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47431397)

they are Come 0n

He must have picked up that needle again... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47431573)

Or hopped back on the pogo stick?

Of course. (1)

gelfling (6534) | about 3 months ago | (#47431619)

It's not voodoo. It's science. When you stop doing what works, bad things happen again.

Windows (1)

Tablizer (95088) | about 3 months ago | (#47431645)

That sounds more like Microsoft Windows

Re:Windows (1)

The MAZZTer (911996) | about 3 months ago | (#47431767)

Yup, if you disable Windows Update and refuse to keep your PC up to date with the latest security fixes, you are going to get malware.

Re: Windows (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47432481)

My virtual machines prefer bareback.

Re:Windows (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47431869)

Drops the OS zealotry. This is seriously bad news for Torvalds. Once he had hope for a cure... now this.

Most likely.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47431729)

It's the mother's fault, again.
She probably hurt herself, her infected blood touched a wound on the child.. and there you go, you have HIV.

HIV positive women shouldn't breed (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47432285)

stupid cows.

Once infected, always infected. (0)

drew_92123 (213321) | about 3 months ago | (#47432383)

There is no cure, and likely never will be.

The only thing that people who are already infected have to look forward to are better and easier treatments, bi-weekly or monthly dosing may soon be possible instead of the daily dosing now required. Maybe somebody they'll come up with a implant that provides constant meds for 5 years... but a cure? Not likely...

Was she cured? (2)

MouseTheLuckyDog (2752443) | about 3 months ago | (#47432385)

Seems to me stupid to say a person is cured if they have to keep taking meds to prevent a relapse.
By that standard insulin is a cure for diabetes.

Re:Was she cured? (2)

compro01 (777531) | about 3 months ago | (#47432721)

Seems to me stupid to say a person is cured if they have to keep taking meds to prevent a relapse.
By that standard insulin is a cure for diabetes.

They thought she might have been cured as she went two years without the meds without suffering a relapse. Typically, a relapse occurs within weeks of discontinuing the medication.

But that ended up bring wrong, as she eventually did relapse, so now they need to figure out why it took so long for that to happen.

:( What a bummer. (2)

jjn1056 (85209) | about 3 months ago | (#47432739)

I don't have anything else to add...

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?