• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Researchers use re-programmed Aids Virus to kill Cancer cells

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Texashiker said:
The weak die, and the future generations are stronger because of it.

How is that being a moron?

Link for reference - http://www.virology.ws/2009/02/20/hiv-1/
Click to expand...

I'm going to respond seriously just once. After that I'll default with, "You're insane."

Irrespective of any appeal to common decency, morality, or mercy, your philosophy could discredit the entire field of medicine, since people who get sick by definition have a weakness to the disease. Just let them die if they are weak. Brilliant.
 
Last edited:
Atreus21 said:
Without making any appeal to common decency, morality, or mercy, your philosophy could discredit the entire field of medicine, since people who get sick by definition have a weakness to the disease. Just let them die if they are weak. Brilliant.
Click to expand...

My argument is not about modern medicine, or if we should or should not be treating certain conditions.

Besides "decency, morality, or mercy", give me a single good reason why someone with a genetic defect at an early age should be kept alive?

We are not talking about mumps, measles, chicken pox,,, we are talking about cancer.

Now we have a child that will pass her genes down to future generations. And for what? So her grandchildren, her great grandchildren can suffer her cancer like she did?
 
dmcowen674 said:
12-11-2012

http://science.slashdot.org/story/1...utm_source=rss1.0mainlinkanon&utm_medium=feed

Altered Immune Cells Help Girl Beat Leukemia



"For decades, one of cancer's most powerful weapons has been to corrupt the human immune system.


Finally, researchers in Philadelphia have developed a way to turn that weapon against certain cancers, and potentially open the door to a whole new generation of therapies for all manner of cancers.


From the article: 'It is hard to believe, but last spring Emma, then 6, was near death from leukemia. She had relapsed twice after chemotherapy, and doctors had run out of options.


Desperate to save her, her parents sought an experimental treatment at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, one that had never before been tried in a child, or in anyone with the type of leukemia Emma had.


The experiment, in April, used a disabled form of the virus that causes AIDS to reprogram Emma’s immune system genetically to kill cancer cells.'"
Click to expand...

The AIDs virus' genetic replication is so sloppy I am concerned that it mutated into something that attacks human cells.
 
Texashiker said:
My argument is not about modern medicine, or if we should or should not be treating certain conditions.

Besides "decency, morality, or mercy", give me a single good reason why someone with a genetic defect at an early age should be kept alive?

We are not talking about mumps, measles, chicken pox,,, we are talking about cancer.

Now we have a child that will pass her genes down to future generations. And for what? So her grandchildren, her great grandchildren can suffer her cancer like she did?
Click to expand...

All your insane ranting aside, she will almost certainly be infertile from earlier treatments. You don't have anything to worry about. Although if the human race could select either her or you to procreate, the better choice would be her.
 
Texashiker said:
My argument is not about modern medicine, or if we should or should not be treating certain conditions.

Besides "decency, morality, or mercy", give me a single good reason why someone with a genetic defect at an early age should be kept alive?

We are not talking about mumps, measles, chicken pox,,, we are talking about cancer.

Now we have a child that will pass her genes down to future generations. And for what? So her grandchildren, her great grandchildren can suffer her cancer like she did?
Click to expand...

IF it's curable really doesn't matter does it? Honestly your comparison would also say we should drop other things like heart medications etc... So you should cross those off the list. If you are fine - thats' your opinion. Otherwise your a hypocrite.

Logically I get what your saying - that said it's kind of irrelevant if it's curable. Also keeping these people alive could lead to additional mutuations that are benficial. Impossible to know. You never know with advances like this. 25 years ago peopel would have said your nuts if HIV could cure cancer.
 
Pens1566 said:
All your insane ranting aside,
Click to expand...

How am I ranting? Everything I have posted is the foundation of who we are today.

Natural selection has been weeding out the weak for hundreds of thousands of years, and now all of a sudden we want to interfere?


Naeeldar said:
IF it's curable really doesn't matter does it? Honestly your comparison would also say we should drop other things like heart medications etc... So you should cross those off the list. If you are fine - thats' your opinion. Otherwise your a hypocrite.
Click to expand...

Someone in their 50s that developed heart disease due to bad diet, or a genetic condition?
 
Pretty amazing story, I saw it last night on the late night CBS news. The father said that the day they administered the treatment the little girl was so sick that they had been warned she probably wouldn't last the night. Now she is leukemia free, so far as they can detect.

As far as the politics of the situation go, the OP's attack was way over the top but you really do have to think where we would be now if the stem cell research wasn't artificially crippled for years. Heck, maybe even Ronald Reagan (or my mother, for that matter) wouldn't have died a cruel death from Alzheimer's.
 
Texashiker said:
How am I ranting? Everything I have posted is the foundation of who we are today.

Natural selection has been weeding out the weak for hundreds of thousands of years, and now all of a sudden we want to interfere?




Someone in their 50s that developed heart disease due to bad diet, or a genetic condition?
Click to expand...


Natural selection doesn't have a purpose, and you're missing the big picture if you think resistance to disease is all that matters. We aren't animals.

Stephen Hawking's parents shouldn't have reproduced according to you, yet if he wasn't born we'd be behind in the field of physics. For all you know, this girl could be the one to save all life on earth from a zombie plague, or aliens, or whatever. Humanity is a civilization, not a herd, and individuals have value.
 
Thump553 said:
Pretty amazing story, I saw it last night on the late night CBS news. The father said that the day they administered the treatment the little girl was so sick that they had been warned she probably wouldn't last the night. Now she is leukemia free, so far as they can detect.

As far as the politics of the situation go, the OP's attack was way over the top but you really do have to think where we would be now if the stem cell research wasn't artificially crippled for years. Heck, maybe even Ronald Reagan (or my mother, for that matter) wouldn't have died a cruel death from Alzheimer's.
Click to expand...

How the was stem cell research "crippled" simply because government didn't fund it?

And do you really not understand the ethical issues of creating human life to destroy it?
 
Texashiker said:
How am I ranting? Everything I have posted is the foundation of who we are today.

Natural selection has been weeding out the weak for hundreds of thousands of years, and now all of a sudden we want to interfere?




Someone in their 50s that developed heart disease due to bad diet, or a genetic condition?
Click to expand...

But some people have genetic resistance to bad diet hence they can eat whatever they want and not have to worry so don't they have better genes. According to you we only want the people that are impervious to poor diets in our gene pool.

What about people that we only find about their genetic conditions after they have procreate them. Might as well exterminate their offspring because we can't be too careful.'

Black people have skin that makes them better adapted to handle the sun. I guess everyone else has faulty genes and should not be allowed to breed.



Back to the real world genetic diversity is one of the reasons why humans have excelled. The woman may have a genetic condition but until we known exactly what every gene does than you can't make any guess as to anyone's genetic potential. She could have a gene that makes her immune to some super bird flu etc.
 
Texashiker said:
There have been some recent articles taking about how viruses, parasites, bacteria,,, may have fueled human evolution.

Scientist took a form of the HIV virus, reprogram it, inject it into a child that should have died,,, how are those actions going to affect future generations?

In all honestly, that child should have died before she could pass her faulty genes to the next generation.

Science has interfered with natural selection, and set us on a new path of human evolution.
Click to expand...

Exactly. You live in a universe that favors the evolution of intelligence and now intelligence will favor the evolution of intelligent design so that the intelligence of which we are a fragment can experience infinite variety in totality. The universe is conscious memory. As above so below. The one becomes three and the three become seven.
 
mchammer187 said:
According to you we only want the people that are impervious to poor diets in our gene pool.
Click to expand...

According to me, maybe we should let nature run its course from time to time.

The OP is not about some factory worker that developed lung cancer from asbestos exposure, or developed cancer from radiation exposure.
 
Cool news, tragic thread.

Texashiker: Dude, you are missing the point of Evolution. "Strong", as far as Evolution is concerned, does not mean what we think it means. What it means is "most adapted to the conditions at hand". For all we know, this "weak" girl could hold the Genes that ensure the survivability of our Species. It all hinges on what conditions may apply in the future.
 
Texashiker said:
According to me, maybe we should let nature run its course from time to time.

The OP is not about some factory worker that developed lung cancer from asbestos exposure, or developed cancer from radiation exposure.
Click to expand...

Your position is completely arbitrary then. We interfere with natural selection all the time. So are you against this treatment methodology or just this particular girl receiving EXPERIMENTAL treatment.

That said the girl in receiving the treatment she has already contributed something to society whether she died or not.
 
Texashiker said:
The human race did not survive the ice ages, nor did we adapt to just about every climate on earth by saving the weak.

There is a difference in someone developing cancer due to exposure to radiation, or chemicals, or poor diet,,, and someone who may have been born with a genetic defect.

Its great that we have a chance to save a life, its wonderful that science has progressed that far.

But by saving that life, are we making future generations weaker?

We are thinking about here and now, what about 400, 500, 600 years from now?

If you want an example, look at HIV. Why do blacks have a higher rate of HIV the whites? Because millions of white Europeans were culled by the black death and smallpox. The weak were culled out so the strong can live.

Science is not strengthening humans as a whole, if anything, its making us weaker.
Click to expand...

Atreus21 said:
Uh...you're insane.
Click to expand...

No

Pens1566 said:
You're a moron.
Click to expand...

No

He's evil. As in Nazi death camp / Stalinist USSR evil.
 
Texashiker said:
My argument is not about modern medicine, or if we should or should not be treating certain conditions.

Besides "decency, morality, or mercy", give me a single good reason why someone with a genetic defect at an early age should be kept alive?

We are not talking about mumps, measles, chicken pox,,, we are talking about cancer.

Now we have a child that will pass her genes down to future generations. And for what? So her grandchildren, her great grandchildren can suffer her cancer like she did?
Click to expand...

And if we now have (or soon may have) said cure, we'll just treat her grandkids. Maybe this girl will grow up to be a medical researcher and figure out how to fix the aberrant gene, thus making your point moot.
 
Throckmorton said:
How the was stem cell research "crippled" simply because government didn't fund it?

And do you really not understand the ethical issues of creating human life to destroy it?
Click to expand...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but iirc they stopped .gov funding of new embryonic lines and kept the existing ones for research, but allowed private funding. Also, adult stems cell research was funded and did show some prospects. There were issues early on with embryonic stem cells as I recall - being tumorgenic. But my reading on this subject is out of date, so forgive me if my recollections are in error.
 
blackangst1 said:
Can anyone find a news source that doesnt lead back to the one paragraph in the OP on slashdot?
Click to expand...

Yahoo works

12-11-2012

http://health.yahoo.net/experts/dayinhealth/hiv-virus-possible-cure-leukemia


The HIV Virus: A Possible Cure for Leukemia?



In April 2012, 7-year-old Emily “Emma” Whitehead was in the fight of her life following her second relapse of acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). The then 6-year-old’s parents and doctors turned to an unlikely source to save the young girl's life—the HIV virus.


It's important to note that the T-cells are removed from the patient before being bioengineered with the HIV virus. The patient is not injected with the virus. This treatment differs from chemotherapy, a drug that is one of the most common treatments of leukemia, which kills off all fast-growing cells in the body.


Emma's Remission

Three weeks after receiving the treatment at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, a bone marrow test revealed Emma had achieved remission. Today, she’s still in remission and thriving, but her doctors caution the remission needs to be sustained for a few years before using words like “cured.”
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top