Curing Cancer with HIV

[demwing]

Last edited Wed Jun 26, 2013, 09:28 AM - Edit history (1)

If this is a dupe, I'm sorry. I just couldn't not post this...

#at=217

[SwissTony]

1. Doubtful news (via JREF) is not at all convinced

False claim that HIV is being used to treat cancer
by idoubtit • June 25, 2013 • 2 Comments

I saw a link to the story about HIV as a treatment for cancer. It sounds crazy. And it is far off the mark. Check out the additional information you need to understand the story.

No, doctors did not “inject HIV into a dying girl” to treat her cancer – Cancer Research UK – Science Update blog.

http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2013/06/25/no-doctors-did-not-inject-hiv-into-a-dying-girl-to-treat-her-cancer/

[demwing]

2. From your link:

emphasis mine...

Professor June and his team are taking an interesting approach to this challenge. In particular, they’re developing new ways to turn the power of the immune system on leukemia – a cancer caused by white blood cells (usually B cells, also part of the immune system themselves) growing out of control.

They've developed a technique in which they collect special ‘killer’ immune cells, called T cells, from a cancer patient. These are then ‘reprogrammed’ in the lab using a modified virus, which is very good at smuggling genes into the T cells.

The "modified virus" was HIV. True, they did not “inject HIV into a dying girl” to treat her cancer, but they certainly used the modified HIV to cure the cancer.

[SwissTony]

3. From the same link...

"However, the virus has undergone significant genetic tinkering, meaning that it is no longer harmful (as June does go on to explain). And it’s arguable whether it should even be referred to as HIV at all, given how much it has been altered."

It might have started as HIV but it's been developed considerably.

"And the researchers didn’t inject any virus into anyone. As we’ve explained, they took immune cells out of the patient, treated them with the virus in the lab, then injected the modified cells back in."

The science looks good, but the reporting is what we don't want to see.

[demwing]

4. What is your real issue?

Why so contrary? This is not a controversial issue, so what's going on in your head?

[SwissTony]

5. Accuracy in reporting.

June et al's work is fascinating and I hope they continue developing their approach. But I've seen it reported in several places under titles such as "HIV injected into patients used to cure cancer". This wording is sensational and inaccurate. It's not HIV (but is derived from it) and even the derivative is not injected into the patient.

That's my problem. There's an excellent story there, but it has to be reported accurately. Not this crap...

"I can't believe I just watched a team of real doctors inject a 6-year-old girl with a deadly disease... and smiled. Who knew something called a "serial killer" cell could bring so much unforgettable joy and happiness?"

That's all.

And thanks for posting the video.

Edited to add: I hope you didn't take this as a personal swipe at you, mate. It's just that I'd seen that type of reporting on several sites and it pisses me off. I've been involved in a number of scientific studies and even within the scientific community misrepresentation of a study is not uncommon.