Discussion in 'Other Health News and Research' started by jeffrez, Dec 14, 2010.
Thanks for posting. Would love to know the latest with Cheney's research on stem cells but I don't have a subscription to his newsletter.
There was a thread here on the subject. It seems to have died, so there is not much to report, I guess. Another "miracle treatment" that didn't really pan out and basically just drained some people's bank accounts (like the newsletter itself, according to some people who had been receiving it and then later canceled their subscriptions ).
Apparently this stem cell "news" about the HIV case isn't really that current - the reports of the 'cure' came a few years ago - but the final results have just been published now, which I guess makes it "official." I've seen other reports that the guy involved had some pretty serious complications - some kind of neurological problems, some blindness, perhaps temporary - but I don't know if those were from the treatment itself or from some other causes.
Anyway, if this technique were to work for XMRV (if that is even involved causatively with CFS), the study would at least seem to suggest what we already expected, i.e., that in retrovirus cases a full transplant might be necessary and not just infusions, the latter of which would carry the risk of reinfecting the new cells, etc. I think a lot of that was covered in the other stem cell thread, if you're brave enough to want to sift through all that.
This guy had cancer & HIV. Therefore he needed a bone marrow transplant to treat his cancer. That requires immune system ablation--ie chemo to reduce your immune cells, transplant new donor cells that repopulate your immune system, and therafter take immunosuppressants for life so you don't "reject" the donor cells. Yes, they used a donor lacking the receptor that HIV binds to on the cell. One percent of Caucasians lack this receptor.
This does not apply to XMRV. In HIV work they are now trying gene therapy and other methods to downregulate this receptor as a way of treating HIV. So it gives insights. Perhaps someday they can do that with other viruses. But this means little for anybody who has CFIDS.
Latest from cheney:
September 18th, 2010, published in Stem Cell Therapy, Subscribers Categories
New stem cell treatments in Panama have rapidly slowed and perhaps justifiably so after the increasing realization that several trips and perhaps annual trips may be necessary, even for the best responders, to maintain any peak benefit. I think this is due to the high incidence of XMRV re-activation under either stressors or immune activation such as an infection (flu season) or allergy season as was the case with my step-son (he relapsed with allergy season). He did respond very well to the second transfusion and is back in school so it was worth it to us but we can afford multiple trips if the benefit is so dramatic. He also failed to do anything other than the stem cells after the first trip because he felt cured after this initial visit. The cost of having him miss school is even more expensive over time so it even made economic sense. He is now on the typical regime all my patients are on including Artesunate and CSF’s/HPE. When we get to a better anti-viral strategy (ie Artesunate titration, GcMAF, Transfer Factor or Peptide-T) using the GFP-LNCaP quantitative assay, we can optimize it and my hope is that this will prolong the benefit as well as enhance the benefit of stem cells, at least for those under 60. I am not as sure about stem cells for those over sixty and not altogether sure why this is so but significant reservations also apply to those over sixty receiving organ transplants as there appears to be a rapidly declining benefit curve with age, especially over 60, for almost any therapy. This was also seen in the U. of Colorado stem cell treatment of Parkinsons 15 years ago. Those over sixty responded very little to stem cells in contract to those under 60. It may simply be harder to make an over 60 year-old twenty again but much easier to make a twenty year old with CFS feel twenty again. There is the possibility though that anti-viral strategies may work well in those over sixty as well. We will see. Right now, I can only strongly recommend stem cells for those under 35 and only under the proviso that they may need additional trips over time to maintain benefit. Those over 40 but under 60 will likely see less of a response to stem cells compared to those under 35 and may also need repeated visits to maintain their peak benefit. Those over 60 should probably wait until we can optimize this very promising therapy but it is their call. All stem cell patients should use our current anti-viral recommendations as well as CSF support which does seem to improve the level of response to stem cells and helps prevent early regression.
Thanks for the added information.
So do you dispute the concerns many have that getting stem cell infusions with XMRV present could just end up reinfecting the new cells with the retrovirus? Or that for stem cell therapy to work with XMRV, the immune system might need to be ablated to prevent that from happening?
Wow, thanks for posting that. It presents quite a different story than the hype were getting earlier this year about the "one-time cures," "age doesn't matter," etc. Under 35 is an interesting new cut off point, too.
It may be harder to make a 60 year old feel 20 again than to make a 20 year old feel 20, but how about something to make a 40 year old feel 60 again instead of 90? :rofl
The two are completely unrelated.
First of all, the receptor that HIV initially binds to, is a redundant receptor. So the 1% of Caucasians who lack it don't suffer, as they have other receptors to do the same work.
The likelihood that XMRV is binding to a redundant receptor initially--who knows? And that 1% of the population lacks that receptor? Who knows.
That's why it worked as they used a donor lacking that receptor. In addition, it is not a viable therapy for folks to go thru chemo to wipe out their immune system, get donor bone marrow, and then be on immunosuppressants the rest of their lives. You haven't seen this as any kind of universal therapy for HIV, have you?
It gives insight into the virus, and so scientists are working on ways to either use gene therapy to alter/disable the receptor, OR drugs to downregulate it and hobble HIV. That is the usefulness of this example of this one case.
It has nothing to do with Cheney's stem cell therapy, where you just get stem cells. It's just a whole different ball of wax. I've seen people bring up this HIV study repeatedly with absolutely no understanding of what was involved.
I'm just not sure how what you're saying has anything to do with the speculation that XMRV might re-infect the new cells obtained from stem cell infusions, like the ones Cheney's patients have been getting. From what alex just posted, Cheney even explicitly says in his latest newsletter that he thinks part of the worsening after getting the treatments might have to do with what he calls the "the high incidence of XMRV re-activation." So that would mean, like with HIV, that either the immune system would have to be nuked - which as you note is probably not practical in CFS - or that the stem cells would have to be engineered in ways to overcome the problems posed by the retrovirus.
If you're saying that stem cell infusions wouldn't work for HIV because of some entirely different mechanism/s having to do with receptor binding or other things that aren't involved in XMRV, well, okay. So? Stem cells might still need to be engineered to get around whatever roadblocks are presented by XMRV just like it appears they're working on doing now for HIV.
I think it's too early to say "it means little for anyone with CFIDS." Several researchers, including some at the NIH are looking into the receptors of XMRV. They may or may not be the analogue of CCR5, but certainly it is a model that is worth investigating.
As for having to take immunosuppressants for life, that would be less of a concern for umbilical cord stem cells. If there is a CCR5-receptor analogue in XMRV, a treatment such a selective chemo or experimental treatments which hypermutate the virus followed by Umbilical cord stem cells seems viable with the endpoint of not having to take immunosuppression for life. Of course there are lots of what if's in that equation.
I have been trying to engage Panama in discussion about getting VDR HLA-specific cord cells (because of high responses to gcmaf for those with the optimal VDR alleles), and even that has been a dead end. These "stem cell tourism" institutes will probably only be as aggressive as they need to be to maintain competitive advantage. Having to weed out specific alleles for their cord cells when they can mass produce expanded cord cells (and yet advertise them as customized to the patient) will surely add to their costs significantly. Ideally the day will come when XMRV+ patients won't even consider Panama or other commercial ventures unless they do some real HLA customization. We'll just have to rely on market forces at that point (or hope someone on the inside can sway them--here's looking at you Dr. Cheney)
So in a nutshell, no it's not directly applicable to XMRV yet, but XMRV researchers will be looking at receptors in an entirely different way because of these studies. Every XMRV academic researcher wants to hit the holy grail, and this is as close as HIV has ever been to one.
This guy had HIV and cancer so he had no choice. Luckily, chemotherapy and stem cells cured him of cancer and hiv as a side bonus. But this very risky treatment may kill a significant number of patients with just HIV or CFS.
Joey, you make a really good point -- but if xmrv binds to only one receptor on initial cell entry it had better be redundant or you can't downregulate it.
As to the ? Regarding regular stem cell therapy for Cheney patients I have no comment. All I'm saying is the Berlin patient's situation was totally different and not relevant to the Cheney treatments.
Jen, the point of the thread has nothing to do with the cheney stem cell treatments. The treatment the HIV patient received and the cheney stem cell treatments are two different things. They are not related, and there is no implication of any relevance or correspondence of the HIV treatment and the cheney stem cell treatments. That's why I posted it in the "Other Health News and Research" section.
If anything, the implication in fact is exactly the opposite: that the cheney stem cell treatments probably are not going to work for XMRV any more than a similar kind of stem cell infusion would work for HIV, and that for stem cells to work for XMRV they perhaps would need to be engineered as the article mentioned the researchers were trying to do in the effort to combat HIV.
Iow, the thread in effect is saying, "it's interesting that a full transplant cured the HIV case and that they are working on engineering the stem cells to target HIV better. Perhaps the same approach would be necessary for XMRV." No mention or relevance of this story to the completely different technique cheney uses in the Panama clinic was stated or implied, except perhaps in the negative sense I just described, i.e., noting that the cheney treatment doesn't work for XMRV.
Hope that helps clarify that this thread isn't about the cheney stem cell treatments, regards.
stem cell treatments alone would not work because you need the chemotherapy to first destroy the immune system along with the retrovirus before laying down stem cells to make a brand new and clean immune system free of disease causing pathogens.
I thought I just said that?
Yes, but i said it better!:Sign Peace:
You can also try a Google Site Search
Separate names with a comma.