Dr Cheney has been saying something very similar for many years. Based on my own experiences, I believe this is correct.
Also...on the LDN, I would have to disagree that it can't backfire. Nothing makes me more ill than LDN. I know several pwc's who were thrown into horrible and long lasting relapses from taking LDN. But, I also know some who have good results. It seems that pwc's react full on good or bad to LDN...very few have benign responses.....and that can be quite diagnostic.
Any news about shifting more to therapies that focus on innate immunity, even for an infectious as noxious as HIV, is good news here. It gives us hope that we won't need to rely on ARVs forever, even if we need to start on them for a few years before these drugs go through IND and clinical trials.
If you look at Functional Genetics Inc's product pipeline, the anti-TSG101 monoclonal antibody in the works is FGI-101-1A6. It is listed as the broadest spectrum antiviral monoclonal antibody, as well as the the monoclonal antibody for prostate cancer (XMRV anyone???)
I haven't read the entire article, but I don't think a reason is given. It's stated as a fact that large doses of AZT and Tenofovir are needed to inhibit XMRV. It's also stated that Raltegravir needs only small doses to inhibit XMRV. For this information they are pointing to other studies that have been done.
There's a catch mentioned in the article that we already knew: it looks like XMRV has a low replication rate and these antivirals are used to block replication... meaning they might not be really effective in treating XMRV.
The article concludes with a statement that XMRV might be the third retrovirus infecting humans and that both researchers and patients have a strong interest in XMRV. Then you get the usual questions/disclaimers: what percentage of people is infected? how is it transferred? does XMRV cause disease or is it a bystander? So the conclusion is that many questions are still unanswered.
I think it's good PR for the virus though. There can't be enough articles about it (unless the science is really bad).