http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21552772 I would also advice you to read the following article about this person, titled "The Man Who Had HIV and Now Does Not": http://www.thescientificworld.co.uk/TSW/toc/TSWJ_ArticleLanding.asp?ArticleId=3849 I believe that things like that, and like tre recombinase (from Wikipedia: "Tre recombinase is an experimental enzyme that in lab tests has successfully removed DNA inserted by HIV from infected cells. The enzyme was derived from Cre recombinase through selective mutation for the purposes of identifying HIV markers, which are not bounded by loxP sites and therefore disallow attempts at Cre-Lox recombination."), are offering freat hope for patients suffering from retroviruses - hopefuly not just HIV-1, but also HIV-2, HTLV in all of it's forms, and XMRV/HMRV. In the article that I brought, they mention the disbelief scientists has regardinf finding cure for HIV. I can understand scientists that tried, or had great hopes for that, and were dissapointed time after time and became dispaired. However, stopping to try and find cures would decrease the importance of conventional medicine and would dfeinitley decrease the chances of finding cures. You have to have vision in order to acheive great achievements. Without vision, I don't think that we would have acheieved things like finding about antibiotics (if Alexander Fleming did not have vision, he would have probablty thought to himself about peniciilin "Ah, it wouldn't work in the human body; And even if it would, it would probably kill the body too"; And then Howard Florey and Ernst Boris Chain would have probably said to themselves: "Ah, if Alexander Fleming, the men who discovered it, left the field after being unseccessuful in purifiying Penicillin, why would we be so successful in it?", and then when they were able to purify it, but the amount of Penicillin in the solution minimal, much too small, they would have prbably said to themselves: "Ah, we can't do anything about that". But they did - they found a way to get a Penicillin that is a 100 times more effective than the original Penicillin. And by doing this, they saved the lives of, probably, billions of people since then. And if the experiments about Penicillin [or the fungus from which it came froum] were started right after the then medical student Ernest Duchesne published his findings about the inhibition of Escherichia coli by the fungus Penicillium glaucum - from which they later on purified Penicillin - then perhaps the lives of billions of other people, who died before Penicillin began to be a treatment, would have been saved), eliminating diseases by using vaccines, beating cancer by medical treatments, etc. etc. etc. To my disappointment, it seems to me that the vast majority of the scientists today are realist and practical - too realist and too practical - and they don't have vision, they don't have a dream. Side by side with finding realistic solutions and not forget about the current patients, which need immediate treatments - which is a very, very important thing - I think that it's also very important to try and find - for those patients and for those who in the future would become patients - a cure.