Here’s a New York Time article that describes the “zinc fingers” technique that could be used:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/29/health/research/29zinc.html

The story mentions a company in the Bay Area, Sangamo Biosciences, that’s already got two clinical trials going:

http://sangamo.com/human/human_thera_overview.html#HIV

A patient enrolled in one of the trials recently said his t-cell count has doubled:

http://www.wrcbtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=13701656

Lots more info here:

http://www.investorvillage.com/smbd.asp?mb=1933&pt=m

Then you started ‘contributing’, and people started disagreeing with you, because FYI you’re often rather disagreeable, off topic, and insulting.

@hassenpfeffer: They don’t have to harvest bone marrow stem cells by drilling into the bone any more. They have drugs that will cause the stem cells to mobilize into peripheral blood, then they can be harvested from a vein just like a normal blood donation.

i’m an idealist (sue me), but as a person living with HIV, the idea of, say, volunteering to help further this avenue of research is very appealing. i’m not certain how one goes about these things, but i’m thinking, “not worth it?” i say it is. sure, the odds of survival are marginal, and not everyone of us is built the same, but this sounds to me like a case where the world ought to take further action. even this isn’t a cure for AIDS/HIV, this ought to be reported louder, frankly. what does the lay world know about AIDS/HIV anyway? seems as if there was more imformation readily available to the public twenty years ago.

i’m thinking, say, i were to undergo all the treatments mr brown did (for obv different reasons) and i died, but the resulting data revealed that this was a “one-time fluke” and nothing further could be learned, or that there were further signs for a new sort of treatment, i’d say the people who would benefit from this death, either way, would say that it is worth it. because my life is worth it, i think.

Well and any other preparation before – it shouldn’t surprise anybody that insurance companies would want to have a full array of tests before they commit big bucks to going forward with a bone marrow transplant.

After that the actual transplant part isn’t really much to worry about – at least for me it was about the same as a blood transfusion except instead of blood it consists almost entirely of stem cells.

I did have to take anti-rejection medications like Rapamycin and Tacrolimus for about 2 years afterwards. Some people have to take immune suppressants for less time, some for far longer – it really depends on how well the new immune system settles with your body.

As a final related note – a procedure such as this one will turn the survivor into a chimera, since all of your blood will have a different set of DNA than the rest of your body.

On that note, I’ll believe this gentleman has been cured when he is 5+ years out and still has a healthy CD4 count, no viral count and is free of opportunistic infections.

Add to the list of problems. A very limited supply of bone marrow donors to with the needed resistance. Also, if the recent NASA announce taught us anything, it is that just because something is published, doesn’t mean it is going to pass peer review.

Actually, I think what you’re trying to say is, “Just because something has passed peer review doesn’t mean it’s 100% problem-free and won’t be called into question later.”

The arsenic paper was peer-reviewed. As have been all the papers published about the Berlin Patient.

In that case they use stem cells from your own body to make new bone marrow – and then wipe out your entire immune system. Then they replace your bone marrow cells with your newly created ones.

That way your immune system has basically been rebooted. It is effectively a cure for almost all autoimmune diseases because you we now have the power to force a person’s entire immune system to reboot from scratch – so it will forget all the bad mistakes it has learned.

Like the AIDS ‘cure’ it has a very high chance of killing you if it doesn’t succeed.

The odd thing about the MS cure was how little fanfare there has been … nobody has been daring to use the ‘c’ word despite what an unbelievably massive breakthrough it is.

This is pretty much exactly what I said in the post. Not sure what the problem is, then.

2) The headline was not misleading. It was explaining that the reason there is no victory parade is that AIDS has not been cured. It’s equivalent top saying “if there’s technologically-advanced life on Mars, why aren’t they sending us messages?” The statement answers itself.

3) The mainstream media’s position is a very nuanced, clear explanation of what the Berlin Patient means for the future of AIDS cure and research? Surprise to me. I guess the mainstream media has gotten better these days.

Ths hdln s ls vry msldng, s nyn wld knw frm rdng th rtcl.

Btwn ths nd th ssng wrshp gng n ltly, ‘v lst tn f fth n Bngbng. Ths sd t b n ntllgnt blg. Nw t’s jst prrtng th mnstrm md wth lttl xtr cmmntry nd th ccsnl bt f “stmpnk” r vrprcd frntr.

And besides, people have been wailing about “losing faith” due to misleading headlines and steampunk for years. It’s an old and tired complaint.