Does AIDS have a survival rate?

[Pangloss]

Just curious, does AIDS have a natural survival rate, or is it 100% fatal?

 

I don't mean is it considered 100% fatal. I mean have we seen survivors on a regular basis? And I don't mean people who have the disease but hang on until they're taken out by another disease attacking their weakened immune system. I mean they beat it, lock, stock and barrel, through their own super-poweful immune system.

 

I'm pretty sure I've read about cases like this -- people whose immune systems simply beat AIDS.

 

Also, is it possible that I'm confusing this with the issue of immune systems that reject/destroy the HIV at introduction and don't let it survive and thrive in the system?

 

Thanks!

[RyanJ]

Just curious' date=' does AIDS have a natural survival rate, or is it 100% fatal?

 

I don't mean is it [i']considered[/i] 100% fatal. I mean have we seen survivors on a regular basis? And I don't mean people who have the disease but hang on until they're taken out by another disease attacking their weakened immune system. I mean they beat it, lock, stock and barrel, through their own super-poweful immune system.

 

I'm pretty sure I've read about cases like this -- people whose immune systems simply beat AIDS.

 

Also, is it possible that I'm confusing this with the issue of immune systems that reject/destroy the HIV at introduction and don't let it survive and thrive in the system?

 

Thanks!

 

As far as I'm aware its not 100% fatal, some people do survive it although I can't remember any names but I'm shure I read some do survive it.

I was reading in a science magazine that someone in Africa has shown an immunity to the HIV virus, does anyone know if this is true?

 

Cheers,

 

Ryan Jones

[Pangloss]

It was a discussion about this article on another board that I visit that prompted this question:

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1870340,00.html#121

 

A MAN who tested positive for HIV, the virus that causes Aids, has subsequently shown up negative for the disease in a case that has mystified doctors.

 

It was claimed last night that Andrew Stimpson, 25, may have shaken off the virus with his own immune system after contracting HIV in 2002.

 

If proved, the NHS has said the case would be “medically remarkable”. It could provide vital information to researchers looking into treatments for HIV and Aids, which has killed about 3,800 people in Britain since the 1980s.

 

But it's my contention that we've heard this "news" before. Doesn't it usually turn out that the virus was still in their system, it was just rare enough in the bloodstream that it didn't show up in the particular sample that they took?

 

But even if that's not the case, if it's really gone, isn't that non-news as well? Haven't we heard about people truly surviving AIDS before, because their immune systems simply beat it? (Or like you were talking about with that case in Africa -- I believe I've heard of people being naturally immune to HIV as well.)

[Mokele]

Some Europeans are immune to some strains of HIV, as a side-effect of the black plague. Both use the same cell surface receptors, so individuals with mutations that reduced the number of or eliminates these receptors were resistant or immune to the Plague. As a result, these mutations were selected for, and, while they've undoubtedly declined in the past several hundred years, the gene frequency is still appreciable. It's the CCR5 receptor/gene, and googling that will bring up lots more info.

 

Of course, now there are versions of HIV that use a different receptor, and which would therefore affect those individuals just as badly.

 

Mokele

[RyanJ]

Haven't we heard about people truly surviving AIDS before, because their immune systems simply beat it? (Or like you were talking about with that case in Africa -- I believe I've heard of people being naturally immune to HIV as well.)

 

I'm not shure but I remember reading someone did beat it, they did not know how but apparently the while blood cells managed to get hold of the protein marker and kill the cells giving the person immunity before the infection got too far.

 

Not shure if its right but I remember reading that somewhere!

 

Cheers,

 

Ryan Jones

[Dak]

most strains of HIV take a long time to kill (espescially with the correct treatment), so quite a few people manage to dye of something else before the HIV kills them.

 

and, as mokele said, some people are immune to the more common strains due to the delta-9 mutation.

 

Other than that, when you are first exposed to HIV it is possible for your body to raise anti-bodies against it, and kill the relatively few virions and infected white-blood-cells off; so I suppose you could say that you can become a very little bit infected and then recover.

 

But the bloke mentioned above is, to my knowledge, the only person who has become properly HIV+ and then gone back to being HIV-.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Some Europeans are immune to some strains of HIV, as a side-effect of the black plague. Both use the same cell surface receptors, so individuals with mutations that reduced the number of or eliminates these receptors were resistant or immune to the Plague. As a result, these mutations were selected for, and, while they've undoubtedly declined in the past several hundred years, the gene frequency is still appreciable. It's the CCR5 receptor/gene, and googling that will bring up lots more info.

According to a recent issue of New Scientist, it wasn't actually the plague--the immunity has been around for over a few thousand years.

Sorry, had to nitpick.

 

 

Really, there have been a few cases of people supposedly getting rid of the virus, but in all reality, giving victims the hope that they can shake it (before we do research to see how some were "cured") would be giving them false hope. Let's wait until it's all verified.

[Skye]

I'm pretty sure I've read about cases like this -- people whose immune systems simply beat AIDS.

AIDS and HIV are seperate things. HIV is a virus which infects people, primarily the CD4 T-cells. AIDS is a disease that is most commonly classified as having less than 200 CD4 T-cells per cubic millimetre of blood. People infected with HIV don't necessarily have AIDS, and HIV-infected people that are classified as having AIDS can recover their cell count to the point they no longer have it. So you could very well have heard of people recovering from AIDS.

 

In this case I'd be a little careful in saying he no longer is infected with HIV. HIV tests are usually based on detecting whether the body is producing antibodies to HIV. It might be that the guy is just not producing antibodies for some reason. Some also detect the HIV particle itself though. In any case, HIV can integrate with the host cell DNA and remain dormant, and maybe it is simply doing this, and not showing up on the tests.

[Helix]

I thought AIDs mutated so quickly that natural immunities, especially ones 500 years old, would be useless after a few generations. Isn't that the main trouble with AIDS, it's super-rate of evolution? I would definitely think that the surface receptor aspect, the cause for partial European immunity, would quickly become obsolete as AIDS mutated.

[Mokele]

According to a recent issue of New Scientist, it wasn't actually the plague--the immunity has been around for over a few thousand years.

Sorry, had to nitpick.

 

Quite alright, do you remember which issue or have a link?

[Pangloss]

Fascinating... thanks for all the replies on this.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Quite alright, do you remember which issue or have a link?

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/health/mg18825253.800.html

[sepultallica]

i could be wrong and i probably am, but didnt magic johnson have hiv and he was able to walk it off? naw, he probably recieved treatment for it.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

No, he got HIV and hasn't actually developed AIDS yet. (AIDS is the result of HIV)

[Mokele]

Thanks for the info, Cap'n!

[Nevermore]

According to a recent issue of New Scientist' date=' it wasn't actually the plague--the immunity has been around for over a few thousand years.

Sorry, had to nitpick.[/quote']

Actually, this is the delta-32 mutation, and it is indeed caused by the plague. However, you both seem to forget that the plague wasn't only around in the 1300's. The old skeletons from a few thousand years ago were also plague survivers and thier descendants.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Actually, this is the delta-32 mutation, and it is indeed caused by the plague. However, you both seem to forget that the plague wasn't only around in the 1300's. The old skeletons from a few thousand years ago were also plague survivers and thier descendants.

You'd have to take that up with New Scientist, not me.

[CanadaAotS]

Well no matter how much the aids virus mutates, if its consistently killing humans, evolution will take its course and develop some sort of defence against it.

 

The big disadvantage however is how fast we evolve compared to AIDS ...

[madscimidwest]

in a long enough time line the survival rate always drops to zero.

[Dak]

So tempting to ban you for threadomancy there...

[Sayonara]

The idea is that the Black Death (and various other plagues prior to that) caused the frequency of the gene to increase in the European population, not that it "created" it.

 

I am surprised the New Scientist entry doesn't make this distinction. In fact, it even says "it was probably not handed down from ancestors who survived bubonic plague."

 

Well of course it was. It would hardly be handed down by the victims. What they should have said was "it probably did not originate with ancestors who survived bubonic plague."

 

Well no matter how much the aids virus mutates, if its consistently killing humans, evolution will take its course and develop some sort of defence against it.

 

The big disadvantage however is how fast we evolve compared to AIDS ...

 

AIDS is a syndrome - it doesn't evolve.

 

Human Immunodeficiency Virus is one of the factors which can lead to AIDS, and it evolves rapidly with multiple strains in existence.

 

But your point is valid; HIV evolves much more quickly than we do. Although there have been documented cases of people with what appears to be a natural immunity, it would take a catastrophic population crash to force HIV out with natural selection.

[Alchemist]

The idea is that the Black Death (and various other plagues prior to that) caused the frequency of the gene to increase in the European population, not that it "created" it.

 

I am surprised the New Scientist entry doesn't make this distinction. In fact, it even says "it was probably not handed down from ancestors who survived bubonic plague."

 

Well of course it was. It would hardly be handed down by the victims. What they should have said was "it probably did not originate with ancestors who survived bubonic plague."

 

I agree with Sayonara³.

 

I see that a few ppl don't quite understand yet, AIDS is a syndrome not a disease! Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome is a condition that someone infected by the HIV-virus can develope; this is the state where they can no longer fight-off even the simplest infections. Someone who becomes severely immuno-compromised due to e.g. leukemia can also develope AIDS.

Edited June 17, 2008 by Alchemist
multiple post merged