This is the real deal, though it isn't practical at large scale. My business partner is bitter because he had this idea a year ago and was told by experts in the field that it would never work.
Sounds like this idea predates your partner, but more generally, the skepticism he encountered would be a feature of science, not a bug. Scientists are paid to be skeptical.
(I know that you probably know this, but I think most people would take your comment to mean that establishment scientists are all incompetent curmudgeons, irrationally resistant to "outsider" ideas.)
I'm no expert either, but I think the problem is that suitable donors are extremely rare -- and most of them would prefer not to give up their bone marrow to some random stranger, thanks very much.
update: Oh, and a bone marrow transplant is a horrible procedure which kills 30% of recipients.
AIDS perhaps, but anyone that could afford to pay for a treatment like this is unlikely to have progressed past HIV, as they could surely afford the best current treatments.
I doubt it. It's effectiveness relies on the fact that CCR5 isn't so common as to force microevolution. Like antibiotics, something like this needs to be applied very carefully.
Sure, it may evolve around it, as there already exist some strains that infect directly via the CXCR4 receptor and bypass CCR5 receptors all together. However, this isn't reason to not include the mutation in "designer babies". It will still be effective, and provides resistance to diseases other than HIV (though it also makes you slightly more susceptible to others). In other words, there really isn't any reason to NOT include it, especially since there is a definite benefit achieved by including it.
