But the reservoir for HIV infection, the thing that makes clearing HIV particles from the blood insufficient to cure it, is the CD4 T-cell. So just clearing the blood of HIV will not be curative.
I don't have much biology experience, but if you can keep the blood stream clear of HIV, wouldn't that prevent new T-cells from getting infected, allowing the count of healthy T-cells to start growing as the body makes new ones?
I'm not a biologist either; but, a thought: if the body is protected from greater infection while still keeping its infection levels constant, could the body then actually create successful antibodies for the existing HIV in them, and become cured over time?
Maybe it will in 20 years time...? I honestly have no idea. I'm speaking way outside of my knowledge realm and am more thinking aloud and asking questions than anything
Interesting thought, and I think we have the data to answer the question. HAART has been around since ~1995, so we actually have about 20 years of data to say that it does not cure HIV.
How bad would it be if you injected something that killed all CD4 T-cells?
Like how long would it take until new ones formed and how vulnerable would you be until that happened?
That's in essence what HIV does. You'd give the patient a quicker onset of AIDS. Perhaps if you eradicate the rest of the HIV and keep the patient stable in some other way this could work... but I think this sort of scorched earth method isn't/wouldn't be as attractive as a targeted cure due to the period you'd have full blown AIDS.
