Stem-Cell Transplant Cures HIV in 'Berlin Patient.'

[Lanky Livingston]

Wow, amazing break through for this controversial science.

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

 

[Elephant]

A story from Huffington Post that has a sentence at the very beginning that states, "doctors believe" doesn't quite make this story believable.

Not saying it isn't true but the fact that they say they believe coupled with the source makes one wonder.

 

[fansince62]

A story from Huffington Post that has a sentence at the very beginning that states, "doctors believe" doesn't quite make this story believable.

Not saying it isn't true but the fact that they say they believe coupled with the source makes one wonder.

either way...huge sigh of relief in Dallas and SF when the news came out!....

 

[servumtuum]

I'm going to be very careful about this one. Several people here know I follow scientific advances pretty closely, including in medicine, and that I have a very dim view of how both mainstream "journalism" and even "science news" media treat scientific research when it comes to sensationalist reporting and distortion of what's actually been discovered or what the actual conclusions should be. Couple that with the fact that I am particularly leery of trusting publications with a history of sensationalizing science-and HuffPo is one of those-and as a result I'm waiting until I get some verification from other sources-like peer-reviewed journals and hear what other medical scientists have to say before I can draw any conclusions here.

An aside but related. NASA is catching hell from scientists over the "bacteria that uses arsenic in its DNA" story after several microbiology labs fine-tooth-combed the paper detailing the experiments and research done and found a buch of issues that could cloud the findings.. It's a hot controversy right now, but that's how science is supposed to work. Peer-review is there to make sure scientists get the details right before they publish and they're upset with NASA-who they normally support-for jumping the gun in an apparent PR move.

So-this stem-cell/HIV connection is going to get pored over thoroughly in the next weeks and months before anyone can really draw substantive conclusions but the media likes "attention grabbing" headlines-accuracy is of somewhat lower priority.

 

[Elephant]

El, why do you think they'd make that up? Do you think they are pushing an agenda or just want to make headlines?

Mike, I am not saying they are making it up. I just think a Headline that says there is a cure is misleading when the first sentence in the story does not confirm a definitive cure. It merely suggest the doctors think they have found something. This source is questionable! Until I hear a doctor state, emphatically, in a reputable source there is a cure, not they "believe" they have something in a rag like the Huffington Post, I will continue to question it.


Edit: Blast you Serv! Beating me to the punch in a more eloquent fashion! grrr...

 

[fansince62]

I'm going to be very careful about this one. Several people here know I follow scientific advances pretty closely, including in medicine, and that I have a very dim view of how both mainstream "journalism" and even "science news" media treat scientific research when it comes to sensationalist reporting and distortion of what's actually been discovered or what the actual conclusions should be. Couple that with the fact that I am particularly leery of trusting publications with a history of sensationalizing science-and HuffPo is one of those-and as a result I'm waiting until I get some verification from other sources-like peer-reviewed journals and hear what other medical scientists have to say before I can draw any conclusions here.

An aside but related. NASA is catching hell from scientists over the "bacteria that uses arsenic in its DNA" story after several microbiology labs fine-tooth-combed the paper detailing the experiments and research done and found a buch of issues that could cloud the findings.. It's a hot controversy right now, but that's how science is supposed to work. Peer-review is there to make sure scientists get the details right before they publish and they're upset with NASA-who they normally support-for jumping the gun in an apparent PR move.

So-this stem-cell/HIV connection is going to get pored over thoroughly in the next weeks and months before anyone can really draw substantive conclusions but the media likes "attention grabbing" headlines-accuracy is of somewhat lower priority.

exactly what I was thinking. great news, if true, on human terms. but, post East Anglia, how does one trust the scientific community any longer?

 

[servumtuum]

exactly what I was thinking. great news, if true, on human terms. but, post East Anglia, how does one trust the scientific community any longer?

The East Anglia stuff seems to be "water-under-the-bridge" with mostly everybody exonerated. That whole issue is one where nobody's blameless-but Ill trust a scientist waaaaay before I'll trust a politician.

Even if there were a few dishonest scientists out there-and there are, they being human themselves-the scientific method eventually trips them up.

Without scientific research and the scientific method and peer-review and evidence-based reason we'd be living in the equivalent of a 13th century medieval village with life expectancies of 35 years-and no neat "toys".

Not trusting the scientific community because of a single questionable episode would be like saying the America's style of government is a failure just because of Obama.

Or Bush.

Or Clinton.

Or______(insert you're fav here).

 

[China]

I'll post here what I posted elsewhere about these findings:

These results are interesting and amazing. I wouldn't be too quick to pronounce it a "cure" though. In looking at the abstract of the research article they note that "that the size of the viral reservoir has been reduced over time." It remains to be seen whether the viral reservoir becomes completely eliminated or undetectable. Obviously further longer-term research is warranted to see if this will happen. To me it's not a "cure" until no virus remains (i.e., the viral reservoir is eliminated), which they did not definitively state. Nevertheless, this is good news that bears watching for future repeatable results (i.e., more than just anectdotally in one patient).

 

[fansince62]

The East Anglia stuff seems to be "water-under-the-bridge" with mostly everybody exonerated. That whole issue is one where nobody's blameless-but Ill trust a scientist waaaaay before I'll trust a politician.

Even if there were a few dishonest scientists out there-and there are, they being human themselves-the scientific method eventually trips them up.

Without scientific research and the scientific method and peer-review and evidence-based reason we'd be living in the equivalent of a 13th century medieval village with life expectancies of 35 years-and no neat "toys".

Not trusting the scientific community because of a single questionable episode would be like saying the America's style of government is a failure just because of Obama.

Or Bush.

Or Clinton.

Or______(insert you're fav here).

you're making some cultural and resource assumptions....but....ok.

 

[Lanky Livingston]

exactly what I was thinking. great news, if true, on human terms. but, post East Anglia, how does one trust the scientific community any longer?

LOL. You are beyond brainwashed, my man.

 

[Henry]

The East Anglia stuff seems to be "water-under-the-bridge" with mostly everybody exonerated. That whole issue is one where nobody's blameless-but Ill trust a scientist waaaaay before I'll trust a politician.

Even if there were a few dishonest scientists out there-and there are, they being human themselves-the scientific method eventually trips them up.

Without scientific research and the scientific method and peer-review and evidence-based reason we'd be living in the equivalent of a 13th century medieval village with life expectancies of 35 years-and no neat "toys".

Not trusting the scientific community because of a single questionable episode would be like saying the America's style of government is a failure just because of Obama.

Or Bush.

Or Clinton.

Or______(insert you're fav here).

Excellent, excellent post, Serv.

Anti-intellectualism in this country is really starting to scare me.

 

[fansince62]

Excellent, excellent post, Serv.

Anti-intellectualism in this country is really starting to scare me.

Henry...as someone who holds multiple advanced degrees, whose parents were University professors and whose grandfather was a famous French philosopher....I've absorbed this much: you reap what you sew. it's not like the current anti-intellectual memes appeared out of nowhere.

and as someone who also knows many folks who have worked at agencies such as EPA and heard insider stories on data fudging......and as someone who attended Penn State and has watched all the exchanges on the famous hockey stick publicist......and who heard/read nobel prize winners argue otherwise vis global warming.....it's very hard not to believe that in this super-charged era everything has been corrupted by ideology to some degree.

 

[fansince62]

LOL. You are beyond brainwashed, my man.

dude...I forget more in a day than you know......

 

[Henry]

Henry...as someone who holds multiple advanced degrees, whose parents were University professors and whose grandfather was a famous French philosopher....I've absorbed this much: you reap what you sew. it's not like the current anti-intellectual memes appeared out of nowhere.

and as someone who also knows many folks who have worked at agencies such as EPA and heard insider stories on data fudging......and as someone who attended Penn State and has watched all the exchanges on the famous hockey stick publicist......and who heard/read nobel prize winners argue otherwise vis global warming.....it's very hard not to believe that in this super-charged era everything has been corrupted by ideology to some degree.

I have my own theories on why 'science' is suddenly the bad guy based on my own impressive little personal resume. I'm not really interested in going into THAT at the moment.

I will say this, the throw away line you posted earlier in this thread is not worthy of grand debate or consideration. It's akin to me traipsing into the 'don't ask don't tell' thread and saying 'well, that's nice, but after Abu Ghraib how can we trust the opinions of anyone in the military anyway.'

It's eye-roll material.

 

[fansince62]

I have my own theories on why 'science' is suddenly the bad guy based on my own impressive little personal resume. I'm not really interested in going into THAT at the moment.

I will say this, the throw away line you posted earlier in this thread is not worthy of grand debate or consideration. It's akin to me traipsing into the 'don't ask don't tell' thread and saying 'well, that's nice, but after Abu Ghraib how can we trust the opinions of anyone in the military anyway.'

It's eye-roll material.

that's one thing.......

but the real theme is politicization of science. are you asserting that isn't happening?

btw...it's not that science is the bad guy...it's that scientists are letting themselves be used by not necessarily good people. all sorts of unsupported speculative claims have been laid at the feet of global warming theorists. we saw the same manipulation with the BP spill in terms of predictions about wildlife/sealife deaths. from a hockey stick calculated from a biased set of tree ring samples to heat measuring devices located near tarmac and sometimes painted black....we know the data wasn't always mosh skosh. as noted, I have friends who have passed stories about questionable data mining at EPA. what is a citizen to htink when one scientist employs apocalyptic terms to convey the horrors of anthropogenic engendered global warming and a nobel prize winner disputes that with theories about salinity of the Gulf stream? or when other scientists point to a burst in sun spot activty? or others note that temperatures haven't been rising as much as stated? the laymen is left to think "where does science lay off and political manipulation begin?" is there really an arbiter these days...as originally posted.....formally known as peer review?

I will defer to your expertise in the physical sciences..but I have a lot of experience with econometrics and the soft version of scientific process in the computer science field. the standards can vary widely for "proof" as can the jury of peers. the claim is being made that...like much else in our society these days.....preferred outcomes (i.e., ideology) trump disciplined process. I think it does...I don't know to what degree. it might be the case that it is comparatively small but receives an unbalanced amount of attention. in an age of Journolist and East Anglia...along with Wikileaks....all these activities lead one not to trust what were formally accepted as authoritative bodies and persons. the assault, Henry, is on all our core institutions...not just science. it comes from the Left and the right.

am I as a taxpayer skeptical when the results are being used to support fundamentally alterring laws like cap & trade? you bethcha.

and..oh btw.....I never stated you should trust the opinions of anyone in the military. clearly the senior leadership has taken some hits over the last many years..... .... heck ... I know I parse very carefully what is stated by these cats these days. when in uniform....more than once what I have heard stated before the open mike was different from what I heard behind closed doors. but I digress.

 

[Henry]

Regarding science, as is true for most subjects, politicization works both ways. We don't need to pick one side and smash it with a sledgehammer every time someone so much as mentions the possibility of a scientific breakthrough, do we?

 

[servumtuum]

The point, fansince, is that stem cell research and climate research are not connected and the rejection by classification of "some scientists may have fudged their work therefore if he's a scientist he's not to be trusted" is flat out irrational.

Reason tells me that the antics of the Westboro Baptist Church people does not give me an adequate excuse to mistrust the motives of all Christians and yet that is the message I'm hearing here about scientists.

 

[Henry]

Reason tells me that the antics of the Westboro Baptist Church people does not give me an adequate excuse to mistrust the motives of all Christians and yet that is the message I'm hearing here about scientists.

That's just one thing ...

 

[fansince62]

Regarding science, as is true for most subjects, politicization works both ways. We don't need to pick one side and smash it with a sledgehammer every time someone so much as mentions the possibility of a scientific breakthrough, do we?

Agree 100%.

but I think there are people trying to smash our society and culture 100% so everything can be rebuilt. and that requires a systematic undermining of all institutions.

 

[fansince62]

The point, fansince, is that stem cell research and climate research are not connected and the rejection by classification of "some scientists may have fudged their work therefore if he's a scientist he's not to be trusted" is flat out irrational.

Reason tells me that the antics of the Westboro Baptist Church people does not give me an adequate excuse to mistrust the motives of all Christians and yet that is the message I'm hearing here about scientists.

serv..not my position. my position is that I don't trust authoritative bodies any more. you all are arguiing that the process itself can still be trusted. I am arguiing that what matters now is not the results and how we arrived at them...it's the trust itself. and that has been mutilated.....purposefully....by politically inclined groups who want to fundamentally change how we we receive, process and believe information. some scientists have played along with this...some haven't. this has happened thoughout history. it's not novel. from where I sit...and it's admittedly subjective.....I think it is worse now than it has been in the quarter century I have actually paid attention.

go down the list:

- science

- politicians

- religion

- sports (baseball anyone?)

- diplomats

- unions

- corporations

- media

Who the H are we supposed to trust anymore? the integrity of all the core institutions has been violated. admittedly...one man's opinion.