First Man To Be Cured Of HIV AIDS - A Miracle

[vipinkr]

Source: Here is the first man to be cured of HIV- AIDS - Yahoo! News

Article:

Timothy Ray Brown, 45, from San Francisco Bay Area, is in the news – as the first man cured of HIV- AIDS. “I think so,” he calmly tells his interviewers who ask if he actually is cured.

Brown has been facing cameras, gun mikes and diagnostic kits ever since the publication of a research paper on his unique case in the journal Blood in December 2010.

The researchers led by Kristina Allers and Gero Hutter at Charite University Medicine Berlin documented what can be dubbed as a miracle.

The successful reconstitution of a set of white blood cells that the HIV eats up in Brown’s body is a “very rare” occurrence, they noted.

Brown, who was tested HIV back in 1995 in Germany, was later diagnosed with another disease — leukaemia or blood cancer that involves an abnormal increase in white blood cell.

He was treated with bone marrow stem cell transplant — a cure for blood cancer. The stem cells came from a donor with a rare gene mutation that involves immunity to HIV — again a rare occurrence.
The mechanism involved special white blood cells called CD4+ helper T cells. When a dangerous material like a bacterium or a virus is detected in the body, immune cells immediately stimulate these special cells.

The helper T cells further activate and direct other immune cells to fight the disease. HIV specifically attacks helper T cells, making the body unable to launch a counter offensive against invaders.
Hence, AIDS patients suffer from other lethal infections. The researchers in Berlin showed that after stem cell therapy Brown’s body had reconstitution of CD4+ T cells at a systemic level and specifically in his gut mucosal immune system.

“While the patient remains without any sign of HIV infection,” they wrote. Brown has quit taking his HIV medication. The secret is that if the white cells could be manipulated to a state in which they are no longer infected or infectable by HIV that would mean a functional cure.

Researchers, however, have warned that though the study offers promise, it is not a surefire cure from the dreaded disease — transplants are risky, and this involved a very rare transplant. Brown is a rather lucky man. He said in a recent interview that appeared in the San Francisco media about his cure: “It makes me very happy — very, very happy.”

[Alstar]

Why would they want to cure such a profitable disease?

[JSB]

Originally Posted by Alstar

Why would they want to cure such a profitable disease?

1. This was an academic study using stem cell transplants, not a trial of a commercial drug.

2. Most people involved in medical research are driven by a desire to help people and cure diseases. Big Pharma and profit-driven research may have corrupted the system, but nobody becomes a doctor or scientist with the intention of milking a disease for cash.

3. Even if one company is making money off of a "maintenance drug", another company may see money or a reputation to be made from a cure.

4. If is discovered that an existing profitable drug also cures another disease, the manufacturer can offer it as a cure since the R&D has already been paid for.

[elucidate]

Originally Posted by JSB

2. Most people involved in medical research are driven by a desire to help people and cure diseases. Big Pharma and profit-driven research may have corrupted the system, but nobody becomes a doctor or scientist with the intention of milking a disease for cash.

They may not enter into it with those intentions, but it's amazing how people can change when they are given more power...or paid. Power corrupts, and it happens in all industries.

As for this person, it's great that he was able to be cured, and I'm sure he could afford the treatment...which might not be realistic for the millions of other people plagued by the disease currently.

[alexb5784]

Originally Posted by elucidate

They may not enter into it with those intentions, but it's amazing how people can change when they are given more power...or paid. Power corrupts, and it happens in all industries.

Yes, power does corrupt but only for people who were weak from the very beginning. Someone who's rooted in Truth will never cash in their soul for a dollar, recognition, or anything else. I'll never change, patients come first.

I want to read this research paper in Blood rather than the article. Let me look for it online through PubMed or directly from the journal. I can't take Yahoo! news for face value, it's the scientist in me

Here is it directly from the journal: Evidence for the cure of HIV infection by CCR5?32/?32 stem cell transplantation

I'll have to read the full text to understand what they did and how, but so far, so good. My only concern is that this case should be monitored over the long haul because as stated in the abstract, it's possible the HIV DNA could replicate and cause infection.

[elucidate]

Absolutely!

Those who are grounded in truth from the start though are few and far between, no?

Originally Posted by alexb5784

Yes, power does corrupt but only for people who were weak from the very beginning. Someone who's rooted in Truth will never cash in their soul for a dollar, recognition, or anything else. I'll never change, patients come first.

I want to read this research paper in Blood rather than the article. Let me look for it online through PubMed or directly from the journal. I can't take Yahoo! news for face value, it's the scientist in me

Here is it directly from the journal: Evidence for the cure of HIV infection by CCR5?32/?32 stem cell transplantation

I'll have to read the full text to understand what they did and how, but so far, so good. My only concern is that this case should be monitored over the long haul because as stated in the abstract, it's possible the HIV DNA could replicate and cause infection.

[1by1]

Yeah, he's a fake. Put up by the same people that sell global warming crap to make money out us. Just like aids is a fake disease, this is a fakecure. Don't believe anything this crap says.

[1by1]

By the way, it always starts out expensive and gets cheaper later on, thats how the world works. So now it will be an expensive drug sold by evil drug companies and later it will be a cheap drug sold by evil oil comanies.

[elucidate]

Wow...you know EVERYTHING! Can you be my guru?

[KaleidoskopicVision]

Scientists cure cancer, but no one takes notice -- Health & Wellness -- Sott.net

Cancer is our time's medical bogeyman. The dogmatic reaction by the mainstream medical field to treat it via chemotherapy is flat out ridiculous.

[elucidate]

Originally Posted by KaleidoskopicVision

Scientists cure cancer, but no one takes notice -- Health & Wellness -- Sott.net

Cancer is our time's medical bogeyman. The dogmatic reaction by the mainstream medical field to treat it via chemotherapy is flat out ridiculous.

I can believe this. The sickness industry is far too lucrative for pharmaceutical companies to want people to be free from cancer.

It's the same as what I was reading recently by Elaine Hollingsworth about the whole soy debate. Soy has been documented by many scientists and those working for the FDA as being deadly and not fit for human consumption, and yet, health food stores still stock soy products, naturopaths still recommend soy based baby formulas, even though there have been countless cases of babies dying from horrible diseases directly linked to the soy in the formula, which is like the equivalent of giving your baby 5 birth control pills a day.

It's disgraceful how people just turn a blind eye to scientifically researched and confirmed data in the name of money.

[danthony]

Has anyone heard anything of magic johnson lately? He seemed to have been beating HIV for quite a while as well. Last time I heard, he was not showing any signs of the virus.

[Brutha]

Scientists cure cancer, but no one takes notice -- Health & Wellness -- Sott.net

The article is a good illustration of why you shouldn't listen to people who think that there a big pharma conspiracy.

If you read the article you find that they didn't cure a single human cancer. They don't mention that it cured cancer of a single rat.

There are lots of substances that kill cancer cells that you extract and put into a culture. There are lots of substances that reduce the size of a cancer.

Evangelos Michelakis of University of Alberta is organizing a stage III trial of the substance. You can't really claim that the treatment gets suppressed.

The dogmatic reaction by the mainstream medical field to treat it via chemotherapy is flat out ridiculous.

Given people dichloroacetate would be practicing chemotherapy.
Exchanging one chemical for another doesn't change much about the fact that it's chemotherapy.

[moonrambler]

If there's a big pharma conspiracy, it's not so much to suppress treatment information regarding 'natural' cures but to find those natural cures, extract the active chemicals and patent them into a more effective medication. It's the principal that you have to chew a lot of willow bark to get rid of a headache, but you only have to take a couple of aspirin tablets.

I was reading the other day about an herb that kills cancer cells not only in test tubes but in humans, but it only does so in doses that are toxic and cause internal bleeding, and liver and kidney damage. For that, a person may be better off with standard chemotherapy.

[garentee]

I believe that all cures for all diseases are found in nature. The challenge is to find those that are most effective and those that are not mysteriously banned by some whacked out government oversight ....

Europe to ban hundreds of herbal remedies - Health News, Health & Families - The Independent

[elucidate]

Originally Posted by garentee

I believe that all cures for all diseases are found in nature. The challenge is to find those that are most effective and those that are not mysteriously banned by some whacked out government oversight ....

Europe to ban hundreds of herbal remedies - Health News, Health & Families - The Independent

I'm guessing you have signed the petition.

I don't get how people can seriously think there isn't a conspiracy when stuff like the banning of age old herbs and remedies is going down?

[elucidate]

Originally Posted by moonrambler

If there's a big pharma conspiracy, it's not so much to suppress treatment information regarding 'natural' cures but to find those natural cures, extract the active chemicals and patent them into a more effective medication. It's the principal that you have to chew a lot of willow bark to get rid of a headache, but you only have to take a couple of aspirin tablets.

It does make things more convenient, and it also removes the need or desire for people to take their own health into their own hands and make time to prepare remedies that are just as good, sometimes better than laboratory derived substitutes. They are just giving people what they want, which satisfies their needs in the modern world. In that way I don't think it's a conspiracy, just business.

It's more removing the options and choices that bother me. But I suppose people can still grow their own herbs if they are truly dedicated...unless that is a clause I didn't read about?

I was reading the other day about an herb that kills cancer cells not only in test tubes but in humans, but it only does so in doses that are toxic and cause internal bleeding, and liver and kidney damage. For that, a person may be better off with standard chemotherapy.

Chemotherapy destroys the cancer cells sure, it also destroys the persons entire immune system and just about every other cell left in their body as well as destroying their taste for food and all the things they used to love before they got sick. It may help the person go into remission, but at what cost? They may live a few more years, but they will be weak, and unable to enjoy the things they used to enjoy. Is that really living?

[Brutha]

I don't get how people can seriously think there isn't a conspiracy when stuff like the banning of age old herbs and remedies is going down?

They are banning over the counter sales of those herbs. Registered herbalists can still give their patients all herbs.

[moonrambler]

Originally Posted by elucidate

Chemotherapy destroys the cancer cells sure, it also destroys the persons entire immune system and just about every other cell left in their body as well as destroying their taste for food and all the things they used to love before they got sick. It may help the person go into remission, but at what cost? They may live a few more years, but they will be weak, and unable to enjoy the things they used to enjoy. Is that really living?

I have reservations about chemotherapy too, although it does seem to work very well for many people who go on to live long and healthy lives. My point wasn't to support the use of chemotherapy but rather to mention that it isn't necessary a conspiracy if cancer treatment researchers don't pursue a particular herbal remedy. Some of those remedies are more toxic than standard chemo.

[elucidate]

Originally Posted by moonrambler

I have reservations about chemotherapy too, although it does seem to work very well for many people who go on to live long and healthy lives. My point wasn't to support the use of chemotherapy but rather to mention that it isn't necessary a conspiracy if cancer treatment researchers don't pursue a particular herbal remedy. Some of those remedies are more toxic than standard chemo.

True. You really need to know what you are doing with some herbs.

[elucidate]

Originally Posted by Brutha

They are banning over the counter sales of those herbs. Registered herbalists can still give their patients all herbs.

I didn't realize that.

[1by1]

And yet if you try to change the health system that promotes such expensive drugs all americans start screaming about the injustice of it all.

[Richful]

Originally Posted by KaleidoskopicVision

Scientists cure cancer, but no one takes notice -- Health & Wellness -- Sott.net

Cancer is our time's medical bogeyman. The dogmatic reaction by the mainstream medical field to treat it via chemotherapy is flat out ridiculous.

I suggest taking any news from the Signs of the Times website with a great deal of caution - they are a cult and a dangerous one at that. Course now that I've said that they probably think I'm part of a counter intelligence program

I have reservations about chemotherapy too, although it does seem to work very well for many people who go on to live long and healthy lives. My point wasn't to support the use of chemotherapy but rather to mention that it isn't necessary a conspiracy if cancer treatment researchers don't pursue a particular herbal remedy. Some of those remedies are more toxic than standard chemo.

I'll never understand the 'Natural is better' argument. Pharmacology came from identifying the active ingredients in 'natural' remedies. As for the banning of herbal remedies it's also done because the remedy does not do what it advertises. The excuse of "we can't afford the testing" is pathetic. If you can't show results that the product is safe and works then you are lying to your customers and risking their health.

[elucidate]

Originally Posted by Richful

I'll never understand the 'Natural is better' argument. Pharmacology came from identifying the active ingredients in 'natural' remedies. As for the banning of herbal remedies it's also done because the remedy does not do what it advertises. The excuse of "we can't afford the testing" is pathetic. If you can't show results that the product is safe and works then you are lying to your customers and risking their health.

We were talking specifically about chemotherapy. Do you realize what chemo does to humans already suffering?

Herbal remedies may not work for some, but they do for others, so you can't really say that it's an absolute useless option.

[garentee]

[QUOTE=Richful;910731]



I'll never understand the 'Natural is better' argument. Pharmacology came from identifying the active ingredients in 'natural' remedies.



Why not just use the source natural ingredients instead of adding a whole lot of crap to it that causes side effects that are not beneficial to the health of the user? Everything that can cure disease exists naturally.. it is just that there is less money in the natural cures...

[elucidate]

Why not just use the source natural ingredients instead of adding a whole lot of crap to it that causes side effects that are not beneficial to the health of the user? Everything that can cure disease exists naturally.. it is just that there is less money in the natural cures...

This is how I've always seen it as well. Seems a lot simpler...maybe not as 'convenient' as most people would like it to be. If it's not a pill to take people don't want to know about it.

[neilward2]

People have been using the law of attraction and other alternative medicine practises to cure themselves of diseases for decades.

Has this man's cure of HIV even been scientifically proven?

[Richful]

Originally Posted by elucidate

We were talking specifically about chemotherapy. Do you realize what chemo does to humans already suffering?

Herbal remedies may not work for some, but they do for others, so you can't really say that it's an absolute useless option.

I understand, I wasn't talking about Chemo at all, just natural medicine.

The problem with the "it works for some and not others" argument is that it's all based on anecdotes and poor reasoning. It's called confirmation bias, you only pay attention to the data that supports the theory, not the data that rejects it. That is why clinical trials are done, to monitor treatments and determine whether they are actually effective or not, under controlled conditions. Otherwise it's just hyperbole and placebo action.

@garentee

Why not just use the source natural ingredients instead of adding a whole lot of crap to it that causes side effects that are not beneficial to the health of the user?

Good question, why not look into it with an unbiased perspective and report back?

Everything that can cure disease exists naturally.. it is just that there is less money in the natural cures...

Bold statement.
So we should just forget about surgery, gene therapy, pharmacology, physiotherapy, biology and every other medical science that has extended the life expectancy and quality of life of people around the world, from penicillin to aspirin to anti-biotics? Yeah they've never saved a life or added to a patients quality of life I apologize for the sarcasm but you're being unrealistic. I know there are plenty of herbs that have physiological effects (I take peppermint tea for stomach aches), but there are plenty more that are useless or dangerous. Medical science has improved upon herbal remedies for a reason.

Ever heard of Belladonna? It's incredibly toxic to humans but it's been used in tinctures since the 19th century, now it's constituent parts are used as analgesics, for motion sickness, gastro-intestinal disorders, organophosphates and parkinson's disease - but each of these uses a different chemical compound found in belladonna. Ingested it would kill you.

Any remedy has to be thoroughly tested before it is circulated as a cure, "natural" or chemical. Otherwise you're looking at health risks or fraud. There is less money in natural cures because they aren't as effective - the big pharma companies aren't shaking in their boots conspiring to keep people in the dark about "safe, cheap, natural cures".

[elucidate]

Originally Posted by Richful

I understand, I wasn't talking about Chemo at all, just natural medicine.

The problem with the "it works for some and not others" argument is that it's all based on anecdotes and poor reasoning. It's called confirmation bias, you only pay attention to the data that supports the theory, not the data that rejects it. That is why clinical trials are done, to monitor treatments and determine whether they are actually effective or not, under controlled conditions. Otherwise it's just hyperbole and placebo action.

I don't think I was not including the data that rejects it, just stating that there have been just as many hits as misses, which indicates that it does in fact work, whether by placebo or otherwise? As long as it works does it matter if it is a placebo? Centuries of medicinal confirmation says it was not placebo btw.

Bold statement.
So we should just forget about surgery, gene therapy, pharmacology, physiotherapy, biology and every other medical science that has extended the life expectancy and quality of life of people around the world, from penicillin to aspirin to anti-biotics? Yeah they've never saved a life or added to a patients quality of life I apologize for the sarcasm but you're being unrealistic. I know there are plenty of herbs that have physiological effects (I take peppermint tea for stomach aches), but there are plenty more that are useless or dangerous. Medical science has improved upon herbal remedies for a reason.

You have heard of the current PC buzzword "complimentary medicine, haven't you?

yes, there are herbs that are dangerous, as are there pharmaceuticals that are just as dangerous...so what is your point? You are trying to make the pharma products superior in your mind and ours...why? Sounds pretty bias to me.

Ever heard of Belladonna? It's incredibly toxic to humans but it's been used in tinctures since the 19th century, now it's constituent parts are used as analgesics, for motion sickness, gastro-intestinal disorders, organophosphates and parkinson's disease - but each of these uses a different chemical compound found in belladonna. Ingested it would kill you.

I don't know anyone who would ingest Belladonna these days, do you? It's not even sold as a herb or distilled in any tincture that I've heard of, so why use it as an example?

Any remedy has to be thoroughly tested before it is circulated as a cure, "natural" or chemical. Otherwise you're looking at health risks or fraud. There is less money in natural cures because they aren't as effective - the big pharma companies aren't shaking in their boots conspiring to keep people in the dark about "safe, cheap, natural cures".

Sometimes things are circulated whether they are approved by the FDA or not. Just look at Soy for instance.

[Richful]

Originally Posted by elucidate

I don't think I was not including the data that rejects it, just stating that there have been just as many hits as misses, which indicates that it does in fact work, whether by placebo or otherwise? As long as it works does it matter if it is a placebo? Centuries of medicinal confirmation says it was not placebo btw.

Looking at the hit rate is not enough, you have to do so under controlled conditions, preferably long-term. The placebo affect is short-term and is not a cure. For instance it can relieve pain, but that pain will return. Also there is regression to the mean to consider, meaning that symptoms come and go over-time and a treatment within that time-frame may have no effect at all but appear to. These factors have to be eliminated to get a clear result and they are by no means the only limitations.

As to being effective solely as a placebo... what is wrong? Everything.
Lets start with deceit - the patient is being deceived that they are being treated. Fraud? They are paying for a service that does nothing. In my area I would say the initial consult for an acupuncturist or naturopath is $100. Herbs? Depends, acupuncturists probably $25, naturopath probably $80. Follow-up appointments? $70, plus more herbs... On the expense goes. Then there is ignorance, disseminating information into the community about 'natural' health benefits so the myth continues.

And centuries of medical evidence do not exist - if you have a collection of studies that suggest they do, that have been peer reviewed and accepted I will concede my point. Often times separate studies do not agree, in which case they are analyzed and often the methodology used is found to be flawed.
Here is just one study that collated other clinical studies to determine if individualized herbal treatments are effective:
A systematic review of randomised clinical trials of individualised herbal medicine in any indication -- Guo et al. 83 (984): 633 -- Postgraduate Medical Journal

You have heard of the current PC buzzword "complimentary medicine, haven't you?

yes, there are herbs that are dangerous, as are there pharmaceuticals that are just as dangerous...so what is your point? You are trying to make the pharma products superior in your mind and ours...why? Sounds pretty bias to me.

Yes I have heard of Complementary Medicine - I have been to naturopaths, chiropractors, osteopaths, acupuncturists, massage therapists, energy healers, psychics and more. The ones in blue are the only ones I received any benefit from, I'm just one man and do not a study make of course

I'm not trying to make out pharma products are superior. The same studies need to be done on drugs to prove their effectiveness not superiority, which I know is not always the case. My arguments are aimed at the statement:

Everything that can cure disease exists naturally.. it is just that there is less money in the natural cures...

My examples were of unnatural intervention or human-made chemicals or methods.

I don't know anyone who would ingest Belladonna these days, do you? It's not even sold as a herb or distilled in any tincture that I've heard of, so why use it as an example?

It's an example of a herbal cure (yes probably not ingested lately, but it is sold as a herb still ) that has been studied and broken down into individual chemicals which are synthesized from it. Each of these are used to treat a multitude of conditions, which could not be done if it was taken as a herbal supplement.

Sometimes things are circulated whether they are approved by the FDA or not. Just look at Soy for instance.

True, I think we need to have more testing done on drugs also before release into the market. Herbs are the same. Here's an example: St Johns Wort is prescribed as a natural anti-depressant. The active chemical is hypericin, it inhibits monoamine oxidase (MAO) which is associated with depression. When taking MAO inhibitors one should avoid bacteria with enzymes that can convert tyrosine to tyramine or eat foods that contain tyramine. Basically don't eat eggplant, liver, yeast products, pickled meats and a host of others. Here's a list of other side effects. If we don't study herbs (and drugs) and what they do to us we can't evaluate their effectiveness or safe use.