I think I have a permanent cure for HIV!

[William Gaatjes]

Thank you for your response.
I have to do a little gathering and collecting before i can show my view.

 

[William Gaatjes]

Getting bacteria to make antibodies isn't that hard. Getting them to change the antibodies they make, on their on, when it's unknown what they'll have to change to? I'd like to hear how that might be done. And don't say "phages," that's not an answer.

Here is one possible solution but i do not know if it would work :

A short side step, to explain how (assuming the possibility):
Intel had not so long ago the idea that instead of letting the cpu do the work of finding the optimal stream of data to execute, the compiler should do the work.
Even before that time frame, people had to use mcu and cpu models that just where not fast enough to calculate a desired result within the desired time frame. What did these people do ? They calculated in advance and stored the results as a lookup table. Then no calculation is needed only looking up in memory depending on input.

Translating to this idea :
Thus not letting the bacteria do the work real time. The issue here is location or spatiality while also having to accept temporal effects or the amount of time. The HIV virus itself is not different in it's ability to infect the (for simplicity) immune cells while mutating no ? Well, there should be a limitation in the amount of different version HIV can make before it loses its ability to infect. With modern technology, this can be predicted how many different versions are possible before it lost it's ability to do what it does. With the combination of certain medicines the direction of mutation can be somewhat controlled and steered in a certain direction. This will decrease the amount of possibilities needed.

When the immune system creates antibodies, where do these antibodies normally suppose to lock on to ? IIRC, parts of the virus that are unique and are not to be recognized as human tissue. If this is always the case, then there is the weakness of the immune system. Bacteria or any other pathogen do not have this limitation. In the virus thread we discussed long ago about mimicry and the possible link to acquired auto immune deficiency. Do you see ?

When you know in advance, what possibilities may arise, you know longer have to do it real time. You calculate and produce (in the virtual and the physical realm afterwards) massively parallel what you need. This is one of the true strengths of bacteria and phages. Massively parallel.

It would be ideal to be able to produce phage like antibodies that can only latch on to hiv proteins. Thus giving the immune system a chance to catch up. It would be even more fun if the part of the antibody that is used as recognition for the immune system would be recognized as something the immune system already encountered but was less dangers. Think of common flu's, measles, anything that that the immune system is already aware of.
This way the "calculation" and production of antibodies is done outside the human body. Only the results (the antibodies) are inserted into the body.
What would be even more better, is that this would even conflict with the infection cycle of HIV itself. For example a CCR5-delta 32 lock.


Then we do not have to worry about bacteremia. And since the production has done prior insertion, the strain on the body is less. But i do have to agree that with current biotechnology there is to much if. Statistical analysis of data is of no use here. Exact science is needed.

 

[beginner99]

Personally I think the money spent for a HIV cure is a waste. And i did study microbiology.

Why is it a waste? Like 99% of the people that really need it, can't pay it anyway.
Then the cheapest way "cure" is not to get infected at all. If the research money would be spent on suitable "prevention campaigns", the effect would probably be a lot bigger.

I see it coming, "yeah we finally have a cure/vaccination" after 30 years of effort just to find out 3 years later that the virus is getting resistant.
They actually get resistant within 1 Person against the current medicines.

 

[William Gaatjes]

Personally I think the money spent for a HIV cure is a waste. And i did study microbiology.

Why is it a waste? Like 99% of the people that really need it, can't pay it anyway.
Then the cheapest way "cure" is not to get infected at all. If the research money would be spent on suitable "prevention campaigns", the effect would probably be a lot bigger.

I see it coming, "yeah we finally have a cure/vaccination" after 30 years of effort just to find out 3 years later that the virus is getting resistant.
They actually get resistant within 1 Person against the current medicines.

I agree.

It is not just HIV. Because AIDS kills you in a relatively fast way compared to other sexually transmitted diseases, it is focused on the most. It should however not be the only reason why to think before letting perfectly normal desires take control of ones body.But you have to thank the lying roman catholic church and the naive islam for not getting proper campaigns to people who need it.

Instead of blessing people with knowledge why to take at least precautions or even abstinence before marriage people are filled with fears as a way to deal with their human desires. Fear will always fail. Something power mongering fundamental religious fakes are very fond of doing, is to withhold knowledge and wisdom from people. Power mongering fundamental religious fakes are not capable of trusting others. They only see and wish to see their own evil in and into others.

 

[Gibsons]

Here is one possible solution but i do not know if it would work :

A short side step, to explain how (assuming the possibility):
Intel had not so long ago the idea that instead of letting the cpu do the work of finding the optimal stream of data to execute, the compiler should do the work.
Even before that time frame, people had to use mcu and cpu models that just where not fast enough to calculate a desired result within the desired time frame. What did these people do ? They calculated in advance and stored the results as a lookup table. Then no calculation is needed only looking up in memory depending on input.

Translating to this idea :
Thus not letting the bacteria do the work real time. The issue here is location or spatiality while also having to accept temporal effects or the amount of time. The HIV virus itself is not different in it's ability to infect the (for simplicity) immune cells while mutating no ? Well, there should be a limitation in the amount of different version HIV can make before it loses its ability to infect.

This is sort of true, but it's a very very big number.

Just for comparison's sake, human B cells are estimated to be capable of making over 10^11 different versions of antibodies. And they can make them in extremely high amounts, and have a mechanism for selecting the best ones to make. And they can do this in a matter of a week or two. Plenty of time given the (at least) months long course of HIV infection.

With modern technology, this can be predicted how many different versions are possible before it lost it's ability to do what it does.

I don't think that's possible at this point, or the near future. It's been something of a holy grail problem for structural people going back to the 50s. It seems there are more than a few non-linear processes that determine the overall 3d structure of a protein.

When the immune system creates antibodies, where do these antibodies normally suppose to lock on to ?

At the risk of being flip, "where they can." Which in HIV's case, usually means GP 120.

IIRC, parts of the virus that are unique and are not to be recognized as human tissue.

Not really, no. I mean that's part of it, but it's sort of a given. Antibodies can only bind structures on the outside of the virus. If you want to make something that can bind to the envelope, that would likely be fatal, near 100%.

If this is always the case, then there is the weakness of the immune system. Bacteria or any other pathogen do not have this limitation.

This makes no sense. So they're free to bind or attack human tissue, and that's an advantage? Or they can make autoreactive antibodies? That doesn't help anything. That kills or debilitates people.

In the virus thread we discussed long ago about mimicry and the possible link to acquired auto immune deficiency. Do you see ?

I see no relevance to the problem at hand. The antibody response to HIV isn't really limited by any mimicry on the part of HIV. Unless you want to count the envelope itself, which isn't really mimicry, but real actual self.

When you know in advance, what possibilities may arise, you know longer have to do it real time. You calculate and produce (in the virtual and the physical realm afterwards) massively parallel what you need. This is one of the true strengths of bacteria and phages. Massively parallel.

The immune system does this pretty well, and in parallel. See the above note about how many different antibodies are possible. It finds a solution from perhaps 10^11 possibilities in a matter of a few days. It starts off in parallel, then works sort of sequentially and in parallel from there.

It would be ideal to be able to produce phage like antibodies that can only latch on to hiv proteins.

To put this in terms you're more familiar with - it would be ideal to produce CPU like RAM keyboards. i.e. it doesn't make sense.

The immune system already makes antibodies that can only latch on to HIV proteins.

Thus giving the immune system a chance to catch up.

But the immune system isn't "behind" in any sense of the word.

It would be even more fun if the part of the antibody that is used as recognition for the immune system would be recognized as something the immune system already encountered but was less dangers. Think of common flu's, measles, anything that that the immune system is already aware of.

... wat.

This way the "calculation" and production of antibodies is done outside the human body. Only the results (the antibodies) are inserted into the body.
What would be even more better, is that this would even conflict with the infection cycle of HIV itself. For example a CCR5-delta 32 lock.

IF I understand what you're trying to say, and I'm not at all sure you understand in the first place - it's a near certainty this would make things much worse, and an absolute certainty it wouldn't cure an HIV infection.

 

[William Gaatjes]

I will respond to all the separate subjects later. But here is what i find interesting.

The whole issue is that the human body is effectively a lifetime war zone.
If the immune system would be able to fight HIV alone, it would still lose because HIV attacks the immune system itself.

You mentioned non linear processes for protein folding. Well, it is not that strange is it ? Background EM radiation. We are surrounded by it. It is a driver of life. We both know that temperature is highly important to protein folding and other biological processes. Temperature can be thermal convection, conduction and thermal radiation. But it does not stop with IR. A large part of the EM spectrum has an effect on protein folding and other biological processes. Luckily, life has found ways to limit the effects. But there are situations that the "random" nature of surrounding background EM radiation can be useful. The strength of lighting striking with the right elements forming biological molecules must be found in the EM spectrum. Those who listen to the radio when lightning strikes will know what i mean.

If it has not been done before, it might be interesting research, using equipment that is radio silent and then perform tests on protein folding. The cage of Faraday comes to mind. All electronic radio amateurs know what i mean. But take caution, slowly changing magnetic fields are not shielded.

As a side note :
Another example is the controversial idea that GSM radiation is dangerous. Compared to background radiation it does not do that much and it can be seen as harmless. Those transmitters need a little more kick before anything serious happens. And even then, the skin effect will take care of any internal dangers. Unless you stick the GSM antenna in your eye, but then the antenna will do more damage to your retina when compared to the radiation.

Back to topic.
I can assure you that the people who did biological experiments in space can
verify that protein folding goes a bit different there. Of course gravity has an effect on it's own, but people still seem to forget about the daily Electro Magnetic radiation.

As a short answer :
No, i do not want to lock onto the CCR5-32 delta itself. Only to that which HIV uses. It cannot be exactly the same. It has to be different. Nor do i want foreign pathogens to attack the body. The whole problem is that the human immune system must fight multiple pathogens at the same time while also being undermined. And it is not as fast as you think because it has to check if the antibodies will attack friendly tissue. What i meant was that instead of letting the human body do the work alone, we help it out. With vaccination, it is the immune system that must come up with an answer by purposefully exposing it to a weakened version of a dangerous pathogen.
It is time to turn things around. Time to help the immune system when it cannot do it alone. I do not have enough information at the moment to accurately visualize what an antibody does. How it latches on i can imagine, but i do not know how it is a marker for the immune system. If this is a global chemical signal or a custom made chemical signal depending on the antigen of the pathogen it latches onto. I can imagine that one part of the antibody has to be tailor made for the antigen, but it would make sense that the marker section (here i am, come and take (Song from UB40 ) has to signal specific cells from the immune system.

Why i mentioned mimicry is obvious. Antibodies that are supposed to be safe turn out not to be safe. That is what i believe about acquired auto immune diseases. Auto immune diseases through inherited genetics of course also exists. There is always more then one way to Rome, as they say.

There are other temporary ways to boost the immune system, adrenaline and glucocorticoid suppression. This will boost the immune system but caution must be taken. The human body is evolved and not designed. Everything is connected somehow and will cause serious side effects.

The UB40 song (here i am) :
Fun to listen to while thinking about the antibody marker.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AeRMrZCPGk

 

[William Gaatjes]

I do not know if it is enough, but i vaguely remember the machines used for automation of biological tests. I wonder about how EMI and EMC shielded these devices are. I mean high powered stepping motors need high power switching devices and perhaps long cables. This in itself will always create EMC and EMI when care is not taken. Perhaps this can have an effect too. It is assumed wrongly that all biological processes are not electric and do not experience interference. This is not always the case, i think. Thus without knowing, some biological experiments may have been tainted.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NItwaz0nLJA

 

[Gibsons]

No, i do not want to lock onto the CCR5-32 delta itself. Only to that which HIV uses. It cannot be exactly the same. It has to be different. Nor do i want foreign pathogens to attack the body.

HIV doesn't "lock on to" delta 32. It can lock on to normal CCR5. Most people have the normal version. If you want to "lock on" to any part of it with a protein, there are some issues to deal with. If you're proposing something like rituxamab, that's a very expensive approach, much moreso that current haart therapy.

The whole problem is that the human immune system must fight multiple pathogens at the same time while also being undermined.

The immune system, in its normal state, is perfectly capable of responding to multiple challenges simultaneously.

And it is not as fast as you think because it has to check if the antibodies will attack friendly tissue.

It's as fast as I think it is.

I do not have enough information at the moment to accurately visualize what an antibody does. How it latches on i can imagine, but i do not know how it is a marker for the immune system.

An antibody is a modular protein. It has one part that sticks to the antigen or pathogen (variable region or antigen binding domain), and another part that serves as a "flag" (correct term is constant region or effector region) of sorts, serving as a binding site for cells or other molecules. Think about that old desk that sits in the hallway for a few weeks. One day, someone finally puts a sticker on it that either says "trash" or "for storage." And then it's gone. In humans there are nine different 'flags,' all serving to cause different effects. In some cases the different effects are miniscule.

In the case of viruses and some other things, the 'flag' portion of the antibody isn't always necessary (but it can be helpful). Just covering the binding sites on the virus prevents the virus from entering the next cell. HIV is different though - you can bind it up with antibodies, and it still gets to the next cell.

Why i mentioned mimicry is obvious. Antibodies that are supposed to be safe turn out not to be safe. That is what i believe about acquired auto immune diseases. Auto immune diseases through inherited genetics of course also exists. There is always more then one way to Rome, as they say.

That's how some autoimmune diseases work. Others don't involve antibodies at all.

There are other temporary ways to boost the immune system, adrenaline and glucocorticoid suppression. This will boost the immune system but caution must be taken. The human body is evolved and not designed. Everything is connected somehow and will cause serious side effects.

Google/wiki terms for you
interferon alpha
interferon gamma
TLR agonists
Isoprinosine
Ribavirin
pegfilgrastim

 

[Gibsons]

I do not know if it is enough, but i vaguely remember the machines used for automation of biological tests. I wonder about how EMI and EMC shielded these devices are. I mean high powered stepping motors need high power switching devices and perhaps long cables. This in itself will always create EMC and EMI when care is not taken. Perhaps this can have an effect too. It is assumed wrongly that all biological processes are not electric and do not experience interference. This is not always the case, i think. Thus without knowing, some biological experiments may have been tainted.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NItwaz0nLJA

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein_nuclear_magnetic_resonance_spectroscopy

 

[William Gaatjes]

HIV doesn't "lock on to" delta 32. It can lock on to normal CCR5. Most people have the normal version. If you want to "lock on" to any part of it with a protein, there are some issues to deal with. If you're proposing something like rituxamab, that's a very expensive approach, much moreso that current haart therapy.

CCR5 delta 32 is indeed the mutated version that for some people provides protection to for as far as i know HIV-1. Are there not different versions where CCR5 delta 32 is not a protection ?
I got it mixed up. I will read up on it. It is fascinating.

The immune system, in its normal state, is perfectly capable of responding to multiple challenges simultaneously.

The issue is here that there are multiple reasons why people get sick or get sick and die. Yes it is able, unless there is just to much strain. Nothing is for free. The environment will take it's toll. Daily interaction modulates the adrenaline and glucocorticoids which in turn modulates the immune system. Some pathogens are good at creating havoc and HIV undermines the immune system it self. And then there is still even the genetics factor of individual to individual. And then even if you have all of these under control people will still die of AIDS. It seems to me the immune system is not as capable as you expect. It is a wonderful system, but it is not perfect. It has the capability to destroy, thus it is under heavy control. If i am not mistaken, a hypothetical full blown auto immune attack(body wide simultaneous attack) could destroy and kill within minutes.

An antibody is a modular protein. It has one part that sticks to the antigen or pathogen (variable region or antigen binding domain), and another part that serves as a "flag" (correct term is constant region or effector region) of sorts, serving as a binding site for cells or other molecules. Think about that old desk that sits in the hallway for a few weeks. One day, someone finally puts a sticker on it that either says "trash" or "for storage." And then it's gone. In humans there are nine different 'flags,' all serving to cause different effects. In some cases the different effects are miniscule.

In the case of viruses and some other things, the 'flag' portion of the antibody isn't always necessary (but it can be helpful). Just covering the binding sites on the virus prevents the virus from entering the next cell. HIV is different though - you can bind it up with antibodies, and it still gets to the next cell.

That flag or marker what i called it, that is interesting.
Covering up the binding sites, this is what is interesting. But why does it not work for HIV, assuming for a moment only a single version that is not mutated ?

interferon alpha
interferon gamma
TLR agonists
Isoprinosine
Ribavirin
pegfilgrastim

I will read up on this.

The NMR scanner you linked to is interesting. Thank you. I have to read up on that as well.

 

[William Gaatjes]

Forgot to mention that i had more the robotized automated tests in mind.

 

[Gibsons]

CCR5 delta 32 is indeed the mutated version that for some people provides protection to for as far as i know HIV-1. Are there not different versions where CCR5 delta 32 is not a protection ?
I got it mixed up. I will read up on it. It is fascinating.

CCR5 is the full length gene. It has functions in the immune system. Afaik there's very little or no difference in it between most people. The big exception being people with a version called delta 32. This is a much smaller "truncated" version. It's also non-functional. So while people who are homozygous for delta 32 are resistant to HIV, they are more susceptible to some other pathogens. I forget which ones.

That flag or marker what i called it, that is interesting.
Covering up the binding sites, this is what is interesting. But why does it not work for HIV, assuming for a moment only a single version that is not mutated ?

I can't find the reference atm. I read the paper a while back., It was pretty damn complicated and I'm not a structure guy. IIRC it was in Science.

Now there are some antibodies that will neutralize HIV. But something I've failed to mention is that HIV can travel from cell to cell by means which do not expose it to antibodies. It can travel directly from cell to cell or within something called an "exosome." (Exosomes make my head spin, but not for anything related to HIV.) There's been a lot of research into these antibodies, in particular the "broadly neutralizing" ones, meaning those that can neutralize multiple different strains or mutants of HIV.

Also, antibodies alone are rarely enough to elicit a cure of a viral infection, including influenza. They can be sufficient to prevent disease in the first place, but to clear and infection you typically need other things, specifically cytotoxic T cells.

The NMR scanner you linked to is interesting. Thank you. I have to read up on that as well.

If you can find data on magnetic field strengths, compare the protein NMR machines to the ones they use in hospitals. They use similar principles, but it's kind of like comparing an atom smasher to a rifle.

 

[William Gaatjes]

IIRC, people with CCR5 delta 32 are more likely to not survive west nile virus infections or are at least more susceptible.

I would not be surprised if all pathogens using similar ways of infection as west nile virus are also harmful.

It seems that the best way to silence creationists is by showing the human immune system. But then they will just mention that all diseases are placed upon humanity by "god" as punishment. :'( :thumbsdown:

 

[Throckmorton]

Personally I think the money spent for a HIV cure is a waste. And i did study microbiology.

Why is it a waste? Like 99% of the people that really need it, can't pay it anyway.
Then the cheapest way "cure" is not to get infected at all. If the research money would be spent on suitable "prevention campaigns", the effect would probably be a lot bigger.

I see it coming, "yeah we finally have a cure/vaccination" after 30 years of effort just to find out 3 years later that the virus is getting resistant.
They actually get resistant within 1 Person against the current medicines.

20% of gay men in America have HIV, and they can pay. But a cure is probably still not as profitable for drug companies as a lifetime of treatment.

 

[Gibsons]

20% of gay men in America have HIV, and they can pay. But a cure is probably still not as profitable for drug companies as a lifetime of treatment.

What approach, that might lead to a cure, is not being pursued?

 

[William Gaatjes]

Fascinating :
When i was reading about the immune system and in particular macrophages, I had to think of amoeba when i saw pictures and movies of the macrophages. Funny coincidence is that macrophages move as amoebae do. Interesting that the worlds most known antibiotic : penicillin is actually from a fungi pennicillium.
I think our body works more in symbiotic relations then we think. It seems that in our digestive system( the bowls) we seem to carry a modest amount of fungi as well. Just enough to take advantage of, but not enough to become poisoned.
That is when people live on a healthy diet.

 

[William Gaatjes]

Hooray !

No posted remarks about how antibiotics do not help against viruses. :thumbsup:
But this does makes me think. What is the natural adversary for a virus ? I would think another virus.
Generally speaking : Phages can be used against bacteria. Fungi can be used as protection against bacteria.

Time to enter the realm of diversity. The dimension of the virus.

 

[C1]

I have a prescription bottle of Zovirax on hand to take internally for cold sores. This medicine has been around a along time plus there is now the vaccination available for HERPES types which cause cancer (highly urged for women by Dr Drew Pinsky).

In effect, these are viral antibiotics.

http://www.medicinenet.com/acyclovir/article.htm

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/shingles/default.htm

http://www.herpes.org/herpesinfo/vaccines.shtml

 

[Gibsons]

I have a prescription bottle of Zovirax on hand to take internally for cold sores. This medicine has been around a along time plus there is now the vaccination available for HERPES types which cause cancer (highly urged for women by Dr Drew Pinsky).

In effect, these are viral antibiotics.

http://www.medicinenet.com/acyclovir/article.htm

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/shingles/default.htm

http://www.herpes.org/herpesinfo/vaccines.shtml

Man, that third link is ... odd. Anyway.

There are about 8 known human herpesviruses, and all seem to be able to contribute to cancer (maybe), but the association/risk isn't that strong, if you exclude AIDS contributions.

 

[William Gaatjes]

I have a prescription bottle of Zovirax on hand to take internally for cold sores. This medicine has been around a along time plus there is now the vaccination available for HERPES types which cause cancer (highly urged for women by Dr Drew Pinsky).

In effect, these are viral antibiotics.

http://www.medicinenet.com/acyclovir/article.htm

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/shingles/default.htm

http://www.herpes.org/herpesinfo/vaccines.shtml

Interesting how zovirax functions :

Acyclovir is an antiviral drug, a synthetic nucleoside analogue, that is active against the herpes viruses, including herpes simplex 1 and 2 (cold sores and genital herpes), varicella-zoster (shingles and chickenpox), and Epstein-Barr virus (mononucleosis). Viruses take over living cells and reproduce themselves, often at the expense of the host cell. The acyclovir is converted to an active form by the virus itself, and the virus then uses the active form of acyclovir rather than the nucleoside it normally uses to manufacture DNA, a critical component of viral replication. Incorporation of active acyclovir into new viral DNA stops the production of the DNA. Virally infected cells absorb more acyclovir than normal cells and convert more of it to the active form, which prolongs its antiviral activity. The FDA approved acyclovir in March 198

By reading how it works, i would think it is not allowed for prolonged use.
I think i will read up on these specific viruses.

I think these viruses are cancer related as well. But i think it is a combination of infections. The immune system together with how cells of the body communicate about their health state, i doubt it is a single "attack vector".
It must be a combination of viruses of different families together with bacteria and/or fungi. First slowly a dna mutation builds up in a cell but is kept under control by the immune system or even removed. Then the host get's infected by CMV(common cytomegalovirus a herpes virus) and CMV seems to suppresses the communication between cells and the immune system. I think CMV is not the cause of cancer directly. CMV seems to be able to suppress the immune system. That is what i understand of it.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=330409&highlight=phages&page=2#39

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC538736/

 

[alkemyst]

Man, that third link is ... odd. Anyway.

There are about 8 known human herpesviruses, and all seem to be able to contribute to cancer (maybe), but the association/risk isn't that strong, if you exclude AIDS contributions.

They are also researching methods that some herpesviruii can be taught to focus on killing cancer cells.

Most don't understand Herpes though nor HPV.

 

[tcsenter]

The Tri and Quad Valent vaccine approach using one (the most prevalent) of the infected person's own HIV strain is probably going to be the most effective way of SUPPRESSING the HIV infection using the body's own immune system (basically putting it into a sort of remission) but its not a cure and its only a matter of time before a new genetic mutation overtakes. But if you could add 10 years of effectiveness to protease inhibition cocktail or effectively achieve the same result using a less-punishing dosage, while also reducing viral loading to super low levels for longer periods, what more could you reasonably ask for? Nobody lives forever. A lot of cancer patients would kill for the median lifespan of a person with HIV (providing they received diagnosis and treatment before symptoms of AIDS).

 

[William Gaatjes]

Do not ask me why, but for some reason i constantly have to think of Schwann cells when it comes to slowly killing diseases that could be the result of a former pathogen infection. Schwann cells come up quite often with strange forms of cancer and also with diseases caused by virus infections. Glial cells and Schwann cells. There is something with these cells. Something that makes these cells a desired target for pathogens. I cannot remember why. It just keeps on interrupting me : Schwann cells. Schwann cells. Schwann cells. I would not be surprised if Schwan cells even have seem to have some relation to hiv. Something just does not let me go and i keep thinking about the relationship between hormones, neurotransmitters, those chemicals from the immune system (cytokines or something like that) and the chemicals produced in the digestive system by our symbiotic little friends.


And this song keeps on popping up too :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pFlYtL_o_8

 

[C1]

I included links which might provide insight into how anti-viral agents (might?) operate (hence the oddball third link).

Dr Drew Pinsky ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drew_Pinsky ) on the nightly radio talk show "Love Line", constantly advises females to get the HPV vaccine ( http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/hpv/ ). He maintains that HPV is often involved in cancer causing ( cervical ) and that the vaccine is effective.

 

[C1]

BTW, Zovirax does seem to work, at least in the sense that it drastically increases the time between evident cold sore outbreaks. Prior to oral Zovirax I might have experienced cold/lip sores as often as twice a year. After treatment of even two outbreaks, the relief period increases to the point that my prescription now expires between outbreaks (ie, once per 2.5 yrs).