Well that's a take, would you like to share whatever insights you have into that ?

I think I would be more surprised than anything else if it was random because I'm not sure I've ever heard of someone 'randomly' being cured of any disease without intervention.

▲

fithisux an hour ago | parent [-]

My take is that this is a discovery by luck.

i am not a doctor but maybe the stem cell transplant just removed something dormant.

But needing a cell transplant to remove the HIV sounds inhuman to me. It is an intervention but I am not convinced you need all this pain to cure him from HIV.

Was he already on antiviral drugs? I think so.

Also the subtitle of the article is pretty revealing

"A handful of people with HIV have been cured after receiving HIV-resistant stem cells – but a man who received non-resistant stem cells is also now HIV-free"

HN has become downvoting machine. So sad. I wonder how many people could have been cured from their malladies if people were less aggressive.

	▲	bilekas an hour ago \| parent [-]
		> HN has become downvoting machine. You could have mentioned what you just have in your original answer, your original answer would be more suited to facebook, so it's considered low quality, so it's down voted, don't take it personally. > Was he already on antiviral drugs? I think so. The article is focusing on the surprise that the cells did NOT contain the CCR5 mutation. When they we confident this was a key factor in curing patients. > was declared free of the virus for more than two years after receiving stem cells without the CCR5 mutation, suggesting CCR5 isn’t the whole story > It is an intervention but I am not convinced you need all this pain to cure him from HIV. Again you're making this broad statement as you have some insight into the matter, I don't know about it, the doctors who do seems to have admited they're still learning things. Thats the nice thing about this article. More places to sudy and research.