[Guest]

This came through a friend of mine. I owe him and he is my boss. And he just wants me to follow up on this because he is some how convinced that it will take forever for you to reply. And he thinks that he should be working during his free time, for his work is endless and he enjoys every bit it. So, he practically has no free time. And, if I may add he makes a lot of money. He asked for his name not to be disclosed because he said that it has something to do with him not being supposed to make consultations for other institutions. He has a funny way of saying things (just like that last sentence of mine). So please try to understand him because he always makes sense if you know how to listen to him. Ok, enough excuses and on to the actual letter.

Dear Dr. I work in a place where my job description and sole purpose is to make things work and find solutions. Normally, I do not know enough about the problem in question to be an expert, but I know enough to devise a possible solution. Possible solutions that every now and then one of them actually works. So, basically I a am resource locator and manager and actual work "smother" not a direct contributor.

I have done some preliminary research about the HIV virus, and taken some basic biology courses that included information on how a virus normally procreates and read some journals. I do not remember much of the deep details for I do not have a memory oriented brain. Rather, I go by conclusions.

But I have gathered enough "conclusions" do devise a possible treatment. And I am here to discuss its validity with you.

I have read about the treatment technique that involves the manufacture (or modification) of a "Trogon virus" that targets HIV infected cells and destroys them.

I see this treatment as "not efficient enough" for my standards for solving the problem. So, I was thinking maybe we could find a specific kind of bacteria that is similar to the most important cell that the virus targets (a good initial point). We then could modify it by radiation or direct altering to be a trap for the virus so it would be able to be infected. The trap should also be so that the immune system could handle and clean up afterwards. The trap also should be able to reproduce by itself. So, the degree of alteration should put in account the necessity for that.

So, basically what happens is that we flood an infected person's body with this rather not so harmful bacteria that the immune system could clean up by itself. Or that it could be easily eliminated by anti-bodies. The virus now has a second "favorite" target. The virus after infecting it could either be trapped inside (depending on the manufacturing specifications and possibilities) or reproduce an irregular version of itself that is easier for the immune system to deal with or it would at least not reproduce via a T-cell.

My solutions are normally not concrete and should not be treated as thus. Normally what ends up happening is inspiration for the targeted people in my field of work. (I am a living muse :) ). And then these people end up solving their own problems by themselves. Normally, it involves some charisma and low level hypnosis. Goodness knows how many psychology classes I had to take for this. But my point is if this solutions is possible you need to start believing that it WILL work. And even if did not all what it will need is just a few minor modifications that are your responsibility.

The reason I am explaining this to you is that so the full potential of this "possible" solution would be fulfilled. And what I mean by that is for you to theorize based on what I said. For example, if a bacteria is a bad candidate maybe a modified blood cell or even a T-cell could be a much better candidate.

The primary fields of expertise that are needed for the "digesting" of this solution is genetics, viral reproduction, math, and computer science (programming) background.

The primary philosophy, psychology and reasoning behind this (to be able contract and infect the soul of this "possible" solution) is that chaos and order are is in our heads. Order is more likely to be chaotic then what it is. So, it is much easier to destroy something then to build it. There is an order to the mechanism that this virus uses to procreate and it is primarily included in its RNA. The good news is that it needs a host for reproduction. But its the very reproduction that its order we need to destroy. So, we need to think of it as building itself not destroying us. So, we would think of destroying it not rebuilding ourselves. The "remarkable" phenomenon that makes one specific cell vulnerable to one specific RNA is the cycle in question that we need to brake.

Suggestions are to "make" a poster with the early stages of how infection happens, and another one for the genetic makeup of the RNA and the DNA of the cell that has the action. And playing it in your head every day before you sleep to invoke self hypnosis. Emotional stress needs be to avoided. Caring and tranquility and stability is to be watched and replenished.

I am sorry I talk a lot. But I just had to write the full report. This way I would rest assured that I did ALL what I can (as part of what I always do) to contribute. Because money sometimes is not enough or less effective.


???? ?. ????
____________________________________________
General Purpose Creative Engineer (GPCE)

End of letter.

So, does he have to make more research? Is what he is saying could be done? Please feel free to forward this to any of your colleagues that are currently working in HIV research fields, if you like.

____________
Ma'an

[Guest]

Your friend's definitely thinking outside the box, and solutions are often found there. One problem with this is that if we could develop such a cell, the virus would still attack t-cells (as it currently infects primarily t-cells, but also attacks thousands of other cells). When those infected t-cells would rev up to get the other cells it kills the t-cells. But thanks for your thoughts, I'll roll it around my brain.
GR
[quote] This came through a friend of mine. I owe him and he is my boss... [/quote]

[Guest]

Hello Dr.

Look I am not a physician, but I think I understood enough of what he said for me to reply for that one problem that you were talking about. Even though it will still attack the t-cells (and the thousands of others), every time it infects the trap cell it dies with in it. So, if there were (say) 6 targeted cells (by 6 viruses) and we introduced 6 trap cells, chances are that 3 (50%) of the target cells will be saved (putting in mind a random infection pattern for the virus). So, if the trap cell dies after infection (without reproducing the virus) it is like purely killing 50% of the virus's population.

And just to be sure I asked him and he concurred (after correcting some of the incorrect info that I had).

____________
Ma'an

[quote] Your friend's definitely thinking outside the box, and solutions are often found there. One problem with this is that if we could develop such a cell, the virus would still attack t-cells (as it currently infects primarily t-cells, but also attacks thousands of other cells)... [/quote]

[Guest]

No, actually what I assumed was that the trap cells would withstand the virus, but T cells would still be still infected. The interesting thing about hiv is that when an infected t-cell revs up to attack a foreign or infected cell-- like a trap cell-- it actually increases replication of hiv in the t-cell. So the mechanism that usually eradicates infection-- activation of t-cells-- actually leads to more viral replication.
Now, I need to tell you that I'm a clinician, not a researcher. This thread should not go on too much further here.
GR
[quote] Hello Dr.

Look I am not a physician, but I think I understood enough of what he said for me to reply for that one problem that you were talking about... [/quote]

[Guest]

Ok, do you think that someone could make use of this? That is the intent you know.
___________
Ma'an

[quote] No, actually what I assumed was that the trap cells would withstand the virus, but T cells would still be still infected. The interesting thing about hiv is that when an infected t-cell revs up to attack a foreign or infected cell-- like a trap cell-- it actually increases replication of hiv in the t-cell... [/quote]

[Guest]

It's hard to say. I think the trap is interesting. But if we don't do anything to prevent infection of other cells (like CD4 and others), I'm not sure what the trap will do.
[quote] Ok, do you think that someone could make use of this. That is the intent you know... [/quote]

[Guest]

My friend made some extra research anyway. And it seems that the virus could hid in several hard to find places. Like a ridicules game of hide and seek. So, the most effective solution would be to teach the immune system to deal with this virus by itself.

When I translate this to English it would basically mean that he withdraws his idea.

Although he was talking about using the previously mentioned Trogon virus (the one that kills the infected T cells) along with the trap cell, treating the virus just like a rat. Because when you have a rat you deploy traps and get rid of all the food that it infects.

That's what I understood. But he withdraws the ideas, back to the drawing board.

Thank you very much, Dr.
__________
Ma'an

[quote] It's hard to say. I think the trap is interesting... [/quote]