Stem Cell Transplant Cures HIV In 'Berlin Patient' [Archive] - The Orange Mane

Garcia Bronco

12-17-2010, 01:14 PM

This is double-bad. Bad because they used stem cells when god didn't want them to, and also bad because now god is going to have to think of another disease to punish gays.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/14/hiv-cure-berlin-patient_n_796521.html

That's a weak take young man. I always said you were an ignorant little kid and now you've taken that ignorance to adult hood. We can create stem cells now without involving fetus' and so forth. HIV was inpart spread by the homosexual community(specifically in San Francisco, and that is where the stigma comes from.

peacepipe

12-17-2010, 01:21 PM

That's a weak take young man. I always said you were an ignorant little kid and now you've taken that ignorance to adult hood. We can create stem cells now without involving fetus' and so forth. HIV was inpart spread by the homosexual community(specifically in San Francisco, and that is where the stigma comes from. HIV was inpart spread by heterosexuals so the stigma holds no water.

cutthemdown

12-17-2010, 03:58 PM

Doggcow

12-17-2010, 04:06 PM

This is really good news.

Doggcow

12-17-2010, 04:14 PM

epicSocialism4tw

12-17-2010, 04:46 PM

This is double-bad. Bad because they used stem cells when god didn't want them to, and also bad because now god is going to have to think of another disease to punish gays.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/14/hiv-cure-berlin-patient_n_796521.html

Its always cool when young people emphatically reveal their shallow, trollish takes on things that are over their heads.

Kind of like the post above.

Swedish Extrovert

12-17-2010, 04:54 PM

That's a weak take young man. I always said you were an ignorant little kid and now you've taken that ignorance to adult hood. We can create stem cells now without involving fetus' and so forth. HIV was inpart spread by the homosexual community(specifically in San Francisco, and that is where the stigma comes from.

I know about the embryonic take, douchebag. The text wasn't supposed to be taken seriously. I'm indifferent... other than the fact that this happened, which is outstanding.

chadta

12-17-2010, 05:15 PM

Still like garcia said we can get stem cells without harvesting dead babies.

unless they are killing babies to harvest stem cells whats the big deal ? how is this not any worse than organ donating ?

epicSocialism4tw

12-17-2010, 07:07 PM

unless they are killing babies to harvest stem cells whats the big deal ? how is this not any worse than organ donating ?

Well, theres the whole issue of the fact that they cannot choose whether or not they want to donate their lives to the stem cell industry.

That One Guy

12-17-2010, 08:39 PM

Well HIV is still way more prevalent in the gay community. Probably BI people to blame for spreading it to heteros. The good news is, if this is true, is that they are making progress.

Still like garcia said we can get stem cells without harvesting dead babies.

I've always heard it is very difficult for a male to contract the disease during sex with a female. Much more likely for those who will be on the receiving end of the semen (high levels in gays and black females) and that most straight males that have it get it from drug use.

Not a doctor, just what I've always heard.

epicSocialism4tw

12-17-2010, 08:50 PM

Well, when your putting things into places where they are not designed to go, there is naturally more tissue damage.

I would imagine that its not just AIDS that is a health risk. STD's in general are easier transmitted with blood-on-blood contact. Not to mention infections and permanent tissue damage.

cutthemdown

12-17-2010, 11:44 PM

sirhcyennek81

12-18-2010, 01:11 AM

The patient zero for HIV was apparently a french sociologist who went to africa and ate undercooked monkey meat. The virus made the jump and infected him...and when he went home, he did the naughty with some chick...and then another chick...and so on, and so on...

Didnt the dude who got "cured" from HIV receive adult stemcells from a donor with a mutation that was naturally immune from HIV?

:Broncos:

Play2win

12-18-2010, 02:38 AM

The patient zero for HIV was apparently a french sociologist who went to africa and ate undercooked monkey meat. The virus made the jump and infected him...and when he went home, he did the naughty with some chick...and then another chick...and so on, and so on...

Is that what the kids are calling it these days... ;D

j/k

If this would lead to something real, every man, woman and child on this planet should celebrate and thank their respective maker.

chadta

12-18-2010, 03:39 AM

Well, theres the whole issue of the fact that they cannot choose whether or not they want to donate their lives to the stem cell industry.

Really ?

We make choices for our kids all the time, i guess i dont see the big deal, i have no problem with this being an opt out or an opt in type thing, if you wanna do it do it, if you dont then dont.

i suppose you believe that life begins at conception too ?

which is fine, but this is where i have to agree with some of the pinkos in here who say that radical christianity is just as bad as radical islam. You believing that is fine, but the problem starts where you try to force your beliefs on me. If i wish to be part of or even contribute to stem cell industry you need to mind your own business.

alot of problems could be avoided if people would just live and let live

Swedish Extrovert

12-18-2010, 07:15 AM

I've always heard it is very difficult for a male to contract the disease during sex with a female. Much more likely for those who will be on the receiving end of the semen (high levels in gays and black females) and that most straight males that have it get it from drug use.

Not a doctor, just what I've always heard.

I've seen statistics from several different sources that verify this. I read somewhere, I wish I could remember where it was, that said even if a man is having unprotected sex with an HIV-infected female, his chances of contraction are about 1 percent.

Usually there needs to be blood-on-blood or blood-on-seamen contact.

The reason why needles are so dangerous is because of the chamber in the needle (in the needle itself, not the syringe) that actually holds the blood and acts as a "mini-host".

Contracting the disease from other sources is very very difficult since the virus cannot survive without a host. Needles actualy cause the injection... there have been a few cases of someone contracting HIV from other sources - dentist, barber, shared razors - but even that it difficult, especially if you clean the blades, because you're not actually injecting the blood in your blood stream.

Nevertheless, the gay issue is more restrictive to the developed world, and as someone said on here its purely because anal intercourse causes more bleeding. But in Africa, where in certain parts HIV rates reach 29 percent (the life expectancy in Nigeria is 47), the problem is universal.

Obviously we're not going to be able to give stem cell transplants to every single person living with the virus, but I think this is a breakthrough.

epicSocialism4tw

12-18-2010, 10:01 AM

We make choices for our kids all the time, i guess i dont see the big deal, i have no problem with this being an opt out or an opt in type thing, if you wanna do it do it, if you dont then dont.

Well, we usually dont make the choice to chop them up and then sell their body parts, which is what you are advocating.

i suppose you believe that life begins at conception too ?

Its kind of crazy that this point has to be established, but with the way that misinformation has distorted the minds of the believers, this must be established.

If you have to forcibly kill something, it was alive before you killed it.

One doesnt believe that life begins at conception.

It is scientific fact that once the cortical reaction occurs and the DNA begins replicating that you are talking about a unique individual.

It is not science that provides the philosophical framework necessary to believe in abortion. It is secularism. Science is supposed to be impartial and efforting to unearth patterns of truths. This is an issue that is defined by competing philosophies. One says that killing children is necessary for certain reasons (strain on society, etc) and one says that it is a fundamental right of that child to exist once it has been conceived.

which is fine, but this is where i have to agree with some of the pinkos in
here who say that radical christianity is just as bad as radical islam. You believing that is fine, but the problem starts where you try to force your beliefs on me. If i wish to be part of or even contribute to stem cell industry you need to mind your own business.

Goodness. If our people in America ever become as heartless and dark as the position that you have put forth, we will not survive as a nation.

It is YOU who is forcing your "morals" on the children who are being killed. Abortion is not illegal right now. "Radical Christianity" (its not just Christians who hate abortion there, genius) is not forcing anything on anyone. You need to figure out what morals are and to realize that everyone has morals. Even people who are clueless about morals have morals.

Its so awful that people advocate for the murdered when they have no voices. Its just terrible that people try to save their lives. Terrible.

alot of problems could be avoided if people would just live and let live

Ha!

Ironic statement of the day. A dude advocating the killing of children wanting to "live and let live". Hilarious!

cutthemdown

12-18-2010, 10:22 AM

Really ?

We make choices for our kids all the time, i guess i dont see the big deal, i have no problem with this being an opt out or an opt in type thing, if you wanna do it do it, if you dont then dont.

i suppose you believe that life begins at conception too ?

which is fine, but this is where i have to agree with some of the pinkos in here who say that radical christianity is just as bad as radical islam. You believing that is fine, but the problem starts where you try to force your beliefs on me. If i wish to be part of or even contribute to stem cell industry you need to mind your own business.

alot of problems could be avoided if people would just live and let live

When one persons choice infringes on the freedom of a person not yet old enough to fight or stand up for him or herself some people feel the obligation to step in.

Maybe we should live and let live when some guy is beating his wife. After all its not our business and she didn't get forced to live with the guy right? I mean she could just leave.

cutthemdown

12-18-2010, 10:23 AM

Chadta is an idiot. Comparing having baby killed and sold for parts to parents making decisions for kids all the time. Are you ****ing serious?

Doggcow

12-18-2010, 11:13 AM

Why are we having an argument guys?

Tim Tebow is against abortion. That's all you need to know.

That One Guy

12-18-2010, 11:13 AM

Oh, and as I think people need to die, I'm not so certain I want a widespread cure. Those who primarily get HIV are drug users and those sleeping around - not hard to make the connection to more children and being a general plague on society. It's a check to get some of the garbage out of society, let it keep doing it's work.

chadta

12-18-2010, 02:18 PM

It is YOU who is forcing your "morals" on the children who are being killed. Abortion is not illegal right now. "Radical Christianity" (its not just Christians who hate abortion there, genius) is not forcing anything on anyone. You need to figure out what morals are and to realize that everyone has morals. Even people who are clueless about morals have morals.

Its so awful that people advocate for the murdered when they have no voices. Its just terrible that people try to save their lives. Terrible.

Ha!

Ironic statement of the day. A dude advocating the killing of children wanting to "live and let live". Hilarious!

WTF are you talking about, i never said anything about killing babies, infact i specifically said that as long as that wasnt why they were killin them, but that since they are already dead we may as well use them.

unless they are killing babies to harvest stem cells whats the big deal ? how is this not any worse than organ donating ?

so now that youve made **** up and turned this into a debate on abortion, which honestly i think we are on the same side of, would you maybe take some time and actually read some of the posts in the thread, before painting people as having a certain position.

chadta

12-18-2010, 02:21 PM

Chadta is an idiot. Comparing having baby killed and sold for parts to parents making decisions for kids all the time. Are you ****ing serious?

readings not your strong suit i see, ill copy it again

unless they are killing babies to harvest stem cells whats the big deal ? how is this not any worse than organ donating ?

so please show me where once ive said we should kill babies to harvest parts, cuz ive just shown you were i specifically said that it should not happen.

but the fact remains, if they are already dead, why not use them ? how is that any different than being an organ donor ? lots of places have automatic organ donating, where if you dont specifically say you dont want to donate, guess what, you are, so how is this any different ?

cutthemdown

12-19-2010, 12:53 AM

Because the ends don't always justify the means.

cutthemdown

12-19-2010, 12:54 AM

Also organ transplants are something you have to agree to in life right? I have a signed card where I made that decision. How can you say a parent who just killed the baby can now say give the organs away? It's just seems dirty to me and I want my country to have no part in it.

chadta

12-19-2010, 05:10 AM

One doesnt believe that life begins at conception.

It is scientific fact that once the cortical reaction occurs and the DNA begins replicating that you are talking about a unique individual.

science also says something about evoilution, but yet you dont listen to science when it dosent support your argument

Also organ transplants are something you have to agree to in life right? I have a signed card where I made that decision

actually many places it is presumed that you are a donor unless you fill out paperwork to not be.

http://www.schulich.uwo.ca/news/?article=001297

thats the only thing i could find, and in that article it says that they checked 22 countries with presumed consent, and 22 countries with explicit consent, but it doesnt say what the countries are, so there are at least 22 that you are presumed to be a donor, and i know the UK is one of them.

How can you say a parent who just killed the baby can now say give the organs away? It's just seems dirty to me and I want my country to have no part in it.

when looking at it as one process like that it does sound bad, but i look at it as 2 seperate acts, the baby is already dead, the parents made that choice, now we as society may as well use that in whatever way we can to improve the lives of the rest of us. If the parents choose to have a funeral and what not for the baby then by all means dont touch it let them deal with it. But id bet a fair number of women who have abortions just want it out, and to walk away, and those should be fair game.

epicSocialism4tw

12-19-2010, 10:01 AM

science also says something about evoilution, but yet you dont listen to science when it dosent support your argument

What on earth are you trying to say here?

when looking at it as one process like that it does sound bad, but i look at it as 2 seperate acts, the baby is already dead, the parents made that choice, now we as society may as well use that in whatever way we can to improve the lives of the rest of us. If the parents choose to have a funeral and what not for the baby then by all means dont touch it let them deal with it. But id bet a fair number of women who have abortions just want it out, and to walk away, and those should be fair game.

See, you completely avoid ethical restrictions to such behavior to get what you want from the deal. Its the same thing that people always rail on about with pure capitalism...that people consume their own for pragmatic reasons without ethical restrictions. But I highly doubt that you are a pure capitalist. And at least the pure capitalist can still place moral and ethical restrictions on themselves personally.

When you institutionalize such a thing (killing your children and selling their body parts), you reduce the nature of your system of government to an impersonal, violent, vicious agent.

These children arent being harvested because its the right thing to do. THERE'S MONEY IN IT.

Its a complete ethical nightmare...just like abortion, but worse. And its a classical example of abortion having been a doorway to some even sicker, worse practices. This will no doubt be a doorway to more.

Requiem

12-19-2010, 10:52 AM

That One Guy

12-19-2010, 11:29 AM

Beyond ignorant. Try again.

Druggies are a plague to society. HIV is helping rid us of that problem. Where's the disconnect here?

People who are irresponsible in their life aren't valuable members of society. Let em die.

The Lone Bolt

12-19-2010, 11:57 AM

Druggies are a plague to society. HIV is helping rid us of that problem. Where's the disconnect here?

People who are irresponsible in their life aren't valuable members of society. Let em die.

Yes, you're right. In fact, why wait for AIDS to kill them off? We should just haul them out into the streets and shoot them. That should save us a lot of money that we would otherwise waste in CD treatment.

And while we're at it disabled people and the elderly are also a drain on society...

epicSocialism4tw

12-19-2010, 11:59 AM

Yes, you're right. In fact, why wait for AIDS to kill them off? We should just haul them out into the streets and shoot them. That should save us a lot of money that we would otherwise waste in CD treatment.

And while we're at it disabled people and the elderly are also a drain on society...

Dont forget the mentally handicapped.

That One Guy

12-19-2010, 12:15 PM

There's a difference between killing someone and letting nature take its course.

Play2win

12-19-2010, 12:20 PM

I guess someone never took ethics in college...

The Lone Bolt

12-19-2010, 12:21 PM

There's a difference between killing someone and letting nature take its course.

Denying a life-saving cure or medical treatment is not an execution? How?

If you're going to do that then simply murdering them in the streets is the more efficient option of ridding society of these "leeches", wouldn't you agree?

That One Guy

12-19-2010, 03:16 PM

Denying a life-saving cure or medical treatment is not an execution? How?

If you're going to do that then simply murdering them in the streets is the more efficient option of ridding society of these "leeches", wouldn't you agree?

How many people do you really know who have HIV/AIDs and it isn't from rampant unprotected sex or drug use? Yes, there's the very occasional tainted blood transplant or something but it's quite rare.

You live your life irresponsibly, you face the consequences. We're putting all this money into saving those who are irresponsible with the greatest thing they have - life. If they'll squander that, what good can we really expect from them? Why not put that money and effort to better use elsewhere.

Requiem

12-19-2010, 04:58 PM

How many people do you really know who have HIV/AIDs and it isn't from rampant unprotected sex or drug use? Yes, there's the very occasional tainted blood transplant or something but it's quite rare.

Do you even have a glimpse of an idea of the number of HIV/AIDS cases that are based on drug use? Minimal. About 7%.

Also, by rampant unprotected sex, are you discussing here in America or around the globe?

A lot of people have the disease and don't know about it, due to a lot of factors, ranging the whole spectrum from education, to culture, etc. Rampant unprotected sex and drug use would be minimal here, especially in an industrialized society.

HIV/AIDS isn't something people are asking for by choice, which you seem to be embellishing here.

That One Guy

12-19-2010, 05:20 PM

Do you even have a glimpse of an idea of the number of HIV/AIDS cases that are based on drug use? Minimal. About 7%.

Also, by rampant unprotected sex, are you discussing here in America or around the globe?

A lot of people have the disease and don't know about it, due to a lot of factors, ranging the whole spectrum from education, to culture, etc. Rampant unprotected sex and drug use would be minimal here, especially in an industrialized society.

HIV/AIDS isn't something people are asking for by choice, which you seem to be embellishing here.

Nobody goes to an HIV kiosk and gets shot up.

And around the globe, where HIV is worst, the last thing they need is a population explosion from anyone being saved.

According to this (http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/basic.htm#hivaidsexposure), it appears that you're looking at 10-13% from drug use in the US in 2008 (what they have that I found through Wiki, not writing a paper on this) and the largest portion being transmitted through gay sex. Now, if the disease is so prevalent in the gay community and you knowingly take that risk, the consequences are yours to enjoy and cherish forever.

chadta

12-19-2010, 06:27 PM

See, you completely avoid ethical restrictions to such behavior to get what you want from the deal. Its the same thing that people always rail on about with pure capitalism...that people consume their own for pragmatic reasons without ethical restrictions. But I highly doubt that you are a pure capitalist.

When you institutionalize such a thing (killing your children and selling their body parts), you reduce the nature of your system of government to an impersonal, violent, vicious agent.

once the mother has the abortion, the rights she had to the baby are no more as far as im concerned, if she was so worried about the baby and wanting to provide it a proper funeral and what not she wouldnt have had the abortion. So since she has given away her rights i see no reason why we cant do as we see fit with the dead baby.

And at least the pure capitalist can still place moral and ethical restrictions on themselves personally.

actually i personally would never have an abortion, and if i had a say in it neither would any woman who i may be with ( im a good christian not participating pre marital sex) But i respect the rights of a woman to choose what to do with her body.

I think that until the baby can survive on its own outside the womans body that its not a baby, i mean how many pre mature babies born 18 or 20 weeks early live anyhow ? im not sure on when the limit is for an abortion but as long as it falls before the time that the baby could have lived on its own if it was birthed than im ok with it.

According to this (http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/basic.htm#hivaidsexposure), it appears that you're looking at 10-13% from drug use in the US in 2008 (what they have that I found through Wiki, not writing a paper on this) and the largest portion being transmitted through gay sex. Now, if the disease is so prevalent in the gay community and you knowingly take that risk, the consequences are yours to enjoy and cherish forever.

which is fine and dandy, but stem cell stuff can be used for so much more, and we dont know its limits, i know a couple of people with MS who didnt do anything risky, they were born with it, they would love for anything to come out of stem cell research to help them.

sirhcyennek81

12-19-2010, 08:50 PM

Nobody goes to an HIV kiosk and gets shot up.

And around the globe, where HIV is worst, the last thing they need is a population explosion from anyone being saved.

According to this (http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/basic.htm#hivaidsexposure), it appears that you're looking at 10-13% from drug use in the US in 2008 (what they have that I found through Wiki, not writing a paper on this) and the largest portion being transmitted through gay sex. Now, if the disease is so prevalent in the gay community and you knowingly take that risk, the consequences are yours to enjoy and cherish forever.

I thought the segment of the population with the fastest rate of HIV infection were straight women between 18-25?

:Broncos:

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

12-21-2010, 12:09 AM

Rohirrim

12-21-2010, 07:21 AM

Congrats: You're the poster boy for conservative "values." ^5

Hopefully, he's blessed with gay children.

SPfloppy

01-01-2011, 02:13 PM

I thought the segment of the population with the fastest rate of HIV infection were straight women between 18-25?

:Broncos:

Sluts...:~ohyah!:

That One Guy

01-01-2011, 03:12 PM

which is fine and dandy, but stem cell stuff can be used for so much more, and we dont know its limits, i know a couple of people with MS who didnt do anything risky, they were born with it, they would love for anything to come out of stem cell research to help them.

I'm all for stem cell research. I don't know enough about the finer points of farming them so I can't speak on the morality of it all but I donated some when I had a surgery a few years ago so there's at least some other methods to get them. As for who gets it used, I'd absolutely rather they worry about saving those who you mention. I didn't mean to confuse those two topics if I did.

That One Guy

01-01-2011, 03:15 PM

Congrats: You're the poster boy for conservative "values." ^5

I wont deny it. I don't absolutely embrace and love everyone despite their flaws. If it were up to me, there'd be a lot less opportunities in life for reclamation projects because I don't believe everyone deserves a second chance. That applies to those who contract diseases in this case, those who get themselves put in prison, and those who make bad decisions and end up soaking up social money on welfare. Think about your decisions and make the right one the first time. If you don't, deal with the consequences.