Sharon Lewin, one of the opening speakers at the 2010 World AIDS conference.
Credit: Bob Milstein
It's a tough gig following in the footsteps of celebrities such as Bill Clinton and Nelson Mandela. The opening speaker at this year's World AIDS conference hasn't yet graced the cover of Time but she would certainly make a nice pin-up.
An HIV physician and researcher, Sharon Lewin is an attractive, stylish blonde with a laid back, unassuming manner. She could be mistaken for a college student rather than the director of the Infectious Diseases Unit at the Alfred hospital in Melbourne, Australia. Lewin quietly suspects her invitation to the illustrious club of opening speakers may have something to do with political correctness - she is someone other than an American male.
But there's no need for her concerns. Lewin is at the vanguard of a new movement in AIDS medicine. What she is championing is a third way: not life-long drug therapy, not a vaccine. A cure!
"This is the next frontier of HIV therapy," says Martin Markowitz the clinical director at the Aaron Diamond AIDS Research Center in New York. And as the face of this new push, "Lewin is an excellent choice; she's developed a laboratory model and is trying to organise clinical trials," Markowitz enthused.
Others agree. "She captures the eye of many people with her science and her personality. She is what we call a 'rassembleur', someone who can gather different people and speak their languages," says Rafick-Pierre Sékaly, co-director of the Vaccine and Gene Therapy Institute in Florida.
"She's someone who makes good things happen. She always underplays her role; it's nice to see her getting broader acknowledgement," adds Simon Mallal, Director of the Institute for Immunology and Infectious Diseases at Murdoch University in Western Australia.
Lewin will need to muster all her scientific and leadership skills in the quest to cure HIV.
There's no doubt the world desperately needs a cure. Drugs have saved millions of lives but are an inadequate band-aid for the wreckage caused by the virus. So-called "combination anti-retroviral therapy" or "c-ART", places a crippling burden on many a nation's health budget.
Of the 33 million people infected, 40% now get the drugs. Doubling that by 2031 would cost $US35 billion dollars. By 2016, it's already estimated to consume half the US overseas AID budget! And life-long c-ART does not mean a return to normal healthy life.
According to Lewin, a person on treatment is only half as likely to make it to their 70th birthday as an HIV-negative person. The drugs have side-effects such as diabetes, heart disease, liver disease and cancer and the virus, even though controlled, keeps taking its toll of the immune system.
A one-off jab from a vaccine would be great but there isn't one or any imminent prospect of one. So yes; we'd like a cure please. Like taking antibiotics for strep throat: one dose and you're cured. So why can't we?
The Latent cure
I fail to see the problem. There is a cure already. Don't have sexual relations with people who have the disease.
We are spending vast amounts of very valuable brain power on an area which can be solved without them. These people could be trying to find cures for many other diseases whose causes are far more difficult to determine.
HIV is not an area which needs research and the minds associated with it could be helping to advance medical science in other areas.
Cure for AIDS
~
> I fail to see the problem. There is a cure already. Don't have sexual relations with people who have the disease.
~
You are quite correct, that is a cure for AIDS.
I proposed another, more sure, cure almost 30 years ago while in a meeting in California.
I proposed that all the AIDS infected be quarantined until a cure could be found.
I was told that my proposal was unacceptable as it would violate the rights of the AIDS infected. All 4 of them. (possibly 7, pending some more tests)
That is correct, I proposed that a total of 4 people, maybe 7, people have their rights infringed upon in order to cure AIDS.
Naughty naughty me, I must be kin to Adolph Hitler or something.
I now see the error of my ways for proposing to cure AIDS almost 30 years ago.
Here is my current proposal:
AIDS is just a vector for evolution. AIDS is selecting out the TSTS (Too Stupid To Survive) of the human species.
Just follow your (or my), proposal, and let nature take its course.
Or if our proposals are still unacceptable, just wait about 100 years from now, when the world's population is just a few million, or less, very intelligent people possessing that rare quality of self control and are scattered in tiny groups around the planet, the human species will have then completed just one more evolutionary step, and it will be a far, far, better world they live in, and far better people left alive in it.
~
appalling
what appalling views you both have. firstly, not everyone gets infected via sex - how will abstinence help those who got it via blood transfusions? secondly, if "prevention is the cure", that would mean we should not help anyone who picks any infectious disease on the grounds they "could have avoided them" - eg. influenza, whooping cough, measles (why didn't you vaccinate?).
as for quarantining those who had it- sounds great. laws already exist that supersede individual rights in infectious diseases cases. civil rights was not the issue - it was the fact the infection could not be contained and was already loose elsewhere in the world. in fact, we now know it first began circulating in 1949.
the world is more complex - and more nuanced - than either of you think.
Ignorance
The first two comments are logically invalid because they link the contraction of a disease with moral virtue. Good work there, I can see you've really thought it through.
HIV cure
i am wondering...since the IL-2, prostatin, and other med combos have managed to get rid of 80% of reservoirs in mice....and the Tre Recombinase people in Germany also got rid of a lot of HIV from humanized mice, why not combine both approaches? throw in some CCR5 deficient stem cells too - or something. throw it all in! let's go already!!
there's plenty of new germs coming along that drug companies can milk.
You have a tiny brain you insult humanity
Well with your comment I hope you will be infected with HIV so that you can feel the burden of those who suffer with the disease. so how about the children who was born with it? you need to do some research before you talk some shit!!! the world will be much better without the people like you!
what the hell
You bigot what sort of person are you. First of all by studying HIV so much has been learned about the immune system which intern has and will help other illnesses. Also what about people with Prostate Cancer do you brand them in the same way? Research has shown that it can be caused by the XMRV virus. Also how are you supposed to know who has the virus? your wife could cheat on you how would you know and pass it to you or what about haemophiliacs who caught HIV through tainted blood. As far as i am concerned
there should be more research and more funding for HIV research. And as for the researcher's they are a god send to those infected with HIV and i truly thank them for all there efforts. What we really need is less people like you who ever you are or what ever you are you w****r people like you are the true illness of this planet.
US Patent 7462485
You would be amazed to know, no matter how hard one tries, maybe the institutions and drug companies do not want a cure?
For anyone interested, 5 preclinical studies have shown this method works. How far it will work remains to be seen. One person cannot do it. It takes many.
LG
Article about Sharon Lewin
I am very disappointed by the reference to Sharon Lewin's appearance in Elizabeth Finkel's article. I fail to understand the relevance of this with respect to her clearly exceptional contribution to our knowledge and understanding of HIV infection and treatment. This totally undermines her professional achievements. Would the appearance of the individual have been mentioned if it were a man? Unfortunately this reiterates the sexism inherent in Australian society.
Regards,
Emily Williams