SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
For just the second time since the global epidemic began, a patient appears to have been cured of infection with H.I.V., the virus that causes AIDS.
The news comes nearly 12 years to the day after the first patient known to be cured, a feat that researchers have long tried, and failed, to duplicate. The surprise success now confirms that a cure for H.I.V. infection is possible, if difficult, researchers said.
The investigators are to publish their report on Tuesday in the journal Nature and to present some of the details at the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections in Seattle.
Publicly, the scientists are describing the case as a long-term remission. In interviews, most experts are calling it a cure, with the caveat that it is hard to know how to define the word when there are only two known instances.
Both milestones resulted from bone-marrow transplants given to infected patients. But the transplants were intended to treat cancer in the patients, not H.I.V. Bone-marrow transplantation is unlikely to be a realistic treatment option in the near future. Powerful drugs are now available to control H.I.V. infection, while the transplants are risky, with harsh side effects that can last for years. But rearming the body with immune cells similarly modified to resist H.I.V. might well succeed as a practical treatment, experts said.
HIV-1 remission following CCR5Δ32/Δ32 haematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (DOI: 10.1038/s41586-019-1027-4) (DX)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 06 2019, @09:56PM (5 children)
If they want anyone to read this they would put it on SciHub. I get zero results there.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 06 2019, @10:02PM (1 child)
Yeah. Or you could, you know, pay for the article or subscribe to the journal if you have a real reason to follow the articles. (Or your institution can).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 06 2019, @10:52PM
Spoken like someone who only rarely reads articles. Institutional access is so inferior to SciHub it isn't funny. I could log in that way if I wanted but why when it takes like 10x longer to get each article?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 06 2019, @10:24PM (2 children)
Right, because nobody has access to Nature, the most widely read and disseminated scientific journal in the world. In all seriousness though, most libraries have subscriptions to Nature, as the institutional rate to subscribe is based on various factors, like number of patrons, access numbers, budget, and scales from free to tens of thousands of dollars.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 06 2019, @10:48PM (1 child)
I already paid once for this research, why would I act the sucker and pay again to a useless middleman?
(Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday March 06 2019, @11:32PM
So Daniel Ropers and other parasites [wikipedia.org] can get paid.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]