Comments:Bone marrow transplant potentially linked to cure of patient with AIDS

Article title highly optimisticEdit

Back to article

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Quick hints for new commentators:

  • Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
  • Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
  • You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading


The article title jumps to conclusions. All four sources cited by this article are prudent in saying that the treatment MAY have cured AIDS in the patient, or that the approach is PROMISING.

In terms of neutrality, or whatever category this would apply to, I would expect a more humble article title, something along the lines of "Bone marrow transplant potentially linked to a cure for AIDS"

  Done DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 05:14, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


Another one?Edit

Awesome, it's the 10,000th cure for AIDS,--BLaafg (talk) 07:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

What was the first one? I must have missed it. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 11:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Bone marrow?Edit

The article says stem cell transplantation a couple of times, but mentions it as a bone marrow transplantation, am i right they are breeding aids resistant embryos with extractable quantities of bone marrow(rather big ones) for the sole purpose to cure people that already lived from aids? or is it an error.80.57.67.243 13:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I have read that stem cells can be obtained from adult bone marrow. But I don't know the details of this case. --InfantGorilla (talk) 18:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
In this particular case the guy had Leukemia as well as HIV (unrelated), and was treated for that using a standard bone marrow transplant. However, the doctor who was treating remembered reading about studies conducted saying that bonemarrow transplants from donors who were naturally resistant to HIV had had a ~6% chance of obliterating the infection. So he searched around until he found someone who was a compatible donor and was also HIV resistant, and they did the transplantation. The procedure has between a 20% and 30% chance of killing you outright, and only has a 6% chance of success (and it is expensive and exceptionally, unbelievably painful), so it hasn't been widely performed. The first tests of this procedure as a possible cure for AIDS go back to 1982, so this is nothing new (out of 32 attempts two people survived and were cured). Gopher65talk 20:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
And, now that I (just) read the article, I see that virtually all of what I said was already in there. Oops. Gopher65talk 20:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

those cures are out thereEdit

. . . there is no doubt about it - those cures are out there - we must keep our nose to the grin - and study to show ourselves approved - according to our bible studies - keep up the good works - because there is a cure for cancer as well - the cure is setting right on the end of someones nose - sincerely and thank you - ms e m garrison of pine bluff arkansas - usa . . .

Yay for science!76.100.25.133 20:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Bone Marrow TransplantsEdit

I was about to suggest that AIDs patients keep getting bone marrow transplants from Europeans until they luck out, until I read the last line of the article :(. Fephisto (talk) 15:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Great —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.193.253.118 (talk) 18:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)