AquaVita

http://www.msnbc.com/news/931628.asp?0cv=CB10


Hmm...what are your thoughts on this? I'm a bit skeptical to be honest, mainly because I think I've read something like this before.

Doesn't the virus mutate too often for any type of antibody to be effective?

Arken

That it comes from someone who is apparently immune to HIV makes it seem very promising.

Corwin

Only if it changes its basic method of hiding. It sounds like this antibody finds the actual method itself, rather than looking for specific DNA. HIV seems to be the only kind of cell that hides in this manner, so that method of hiding is itself a good way to identify it.

It's called hueristic searching in computers, antivirus software does it all the time. Rather than look for specific lines of code that are known to be in the Bugbear virus, for example, your virus scanner looks for patterns of behavior (Self replication, keylogging, etc) that 'normal' programs rarely if ever use. It's a much more general form of searching that tends to find more, and do it more accurately.

echidna

Even the article lists that 2G12 has been known of for a decade, so it kinda begs the question why the delay. Contrary to the article’s claim of 2G12’s miracle powers against AIDS, other sites list it as more beneficial in combination treatments & this one,

http://www.aidsvaccine2001.org/Pages/Abstract/S1.HTM

… further indicates that 2G12 is not effective against Subtype C HIV-1.