On Nov 17, 2008, at 3:36 AM, R C Macaulay wrote:
Actually, the NYT does not state the man was " cured." By reading
the report given, one is induced to become seduced by the untruth,
which is what the NYT does best.
The NYT does not make medical decisions, doctors do. The NYT
reports. The NYT does say, "Doctors in Berlin are reporting that
they cured a man of AIDS by giving him transplanted blood stem cells
from a person naturally resistant to the virus." Note the word
"cured". All that said, I would note the NYT choses the Titles to
its articles, and this one is titled, "Rare Treatment Is Reported to
Cure AIDS Patient".
On Nov 17, 2008, at 5:05 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
[snip]
The method used to cure the him could never be used on a large
scale, because it cost a fortune, it nearly killed him, and it
requires a special bone marrow donor who happens to have the right
genetic makeup. But it proves that in principle the virus can be
eliminated.
AIDS patients die because their immune system gets wiped out. If a
patient loses his immune system and goes critical it is better to
take the 10 - 30 percent risk and get the transplant than to just
die. Further, it may be possible to only partially remove the immune
system before making the transplant:
"For example, Dr. Irvin S. Y. Chen, director of the AIDS Institute at
U.C.L.A. , is working on using RNA “hairpin scissors” to cut out the
bits of genetic material in blood stem cells that code for the
receptors. The concept is working in monkeys, he said. Eventually, he
hopes, it will be possible to inject them into humans after wiping
out only part of the immune system with drugs. “I think that would
carry no risk of death,” he said."
This strikes me as a very promising approach to a cure. Of course a
vaccine is the ultimate answer to the problem, though it is notable
this cure acts as a vaccine for those who survive it. The transplant
does not remove the virus from the body, it only prevents it from
attacking the immune system. It thus prevents additional infection
from attacking the immune system. I do see some potential but low
risk problems with this. It may be possible for the virus to mutate
into a version able to penetrate the new immune system. It may also
be possible for someone who has had the cure to infect others with
the virus, though the odds would be small because the virus has to
remain dormant or adapt to new kinds of host cells to survive.
Medical science can "afford" a cure but the miracle of curing
remains in the realm of the spiritual rather than the physical.
Miracles cannot exist, by definition. If something happens, that
proves it is allowed by the laws of nature and therefore it is not
a miracle. See David Hume:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/hume-miracles.html
Quotes:
A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature; and as a firm and
unalterable experience has established these laws, the proof
against a miracle, from the very nature of the fact, is as entire
as any argument from experience can possibly be imagined. . . .
The plain consequence is (and it is a general maxim worthy of our
attention), 'That no testimony is sufficient to establish a
miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood
would be more miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavours to
establish....'"
- Jed
The above argument is a marvelous demonstration that logic applied to
false premises can result in false conclusions. Hume's argument
assumes the laws of nature apply to everything in nature. This is an
unproven assumption. The laws of nature are determined by science,
and the domain of science is only those things in nature which are
repeatable. Hume presupposes the set of things in nature which are
not repeatable is null. He presupposes his conclusion. He further
goes on to say no testimony of great miracles can be taken as
evidence of those miracles. What Hume overlooks is that (a) those
who have experienced miracles have the true knowledge of them and
need neither further testimony nor Hume's approval, and (b) such
people generally know that only they can know the truth for sure, so
remain quiet about it except to most trusted confidants in order to
avoid ridicule. Repeatable events belong to the realm of science,
non-repeatable events belong to the realm of faith, unless there
exist events that belong to neither.
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
