The Oslo patient is the seventh man in the world likely cured of HIV: 'Offers hope'

Don't listen to him, all science is literally just putting babies in blenders. Do you know how many babies were wasted before we got the precise ethnic blend (pun intended) necessary to make asbestos to put into everything? Besides Dan's a prick, gotta have the original receipt, gotta return it in pristine condition, in it's original packaging and he's one of those astrology nuts, so he won't accept it at all if Mercury is in Uranus.

This made me snort

"Personal" computers never took up entire rooms. That's what made them personal, when they were finally small enough and c**** enough that you could have one sitting on or beside your desk.

A bone narrow transplant, much like any other transplant runs the risk of rejection. This has come up time and again whenever this cure comes up (and even your article here notes it as a concern). Medication is given to reduce this risk. Ultimately this is not going to be a widespread routine procedure to cure HIV. It is an option, and certainly one that those who have undergone it will be glad to have had but this is a wonderful side effect of treatment for other conditions, not something that's useful for HIV as the primary goal.

[deleted]

Thank god you brought that study to justify your homophobia. We’re enlightened now. 👏

And you failed to understand my comment. > They do this knowing that between 1 in 5 to 6 have HIV. This is not the US rate of prevalence. If you're going to use the US rate in one place, don't use the global average here. The infection level of HIV in gay/bi men in the US is nowhere near 16-20%. The global average is much higher due to infection rates in Africa, which are far less correlated with gay sexual contact. > This disease has been thrust onto the general population due to the risky sex practices of gay men This disease was thrust onto the general population after making the jump from other primates. The actual original vector of infection isn't well understood but was probably driven by colonial practices and poor healthcare infrastructure in African countries. You're making boring appeals to emotion because you desperately want to paint HIV as a moral failing of gay people. You sound like Ronald Reagan. > I'm sorry that makes you feel bad, but it's the truth. I never disputed the 71% number that you so desperately cling to. As a bi man, I am acutely aware of the danger of HIV. I practice safe sex and get tested regularly.  But your original claim is wrong, and you can't admit it. If gay men all abstained from sex for the next year, it would not eliminate new HIV infections. Your original comment suggests that we shouldn't spend money on HIV treatment because gay men should all practice perfect safe sex or abstinence. My point stands: that is an ineffective health policy. Not only does it abandon those who were already infected to a horrible death (again, like Reagan wanted in the 80s) but it ignores the fact that humans don't practice safe sex in general.  Should we stop developing antibiotic treatments for gonorrhea or syphilis because heterosexuals don't always use condoms? STI prevalence is skyrocketing among the elderly after all, shall we tell them "too bad, it's your fault for your sins!". The goal of studies like the one you zealously push on us here is to determine how best to educate and message the populace. It is not intended for you to shame gay people. Modern health practices rely on the fundamental truth that people are not perfect regardless of age, gender, or sexual orientation.