Is a “cure for HIV” finally on the horizon?

CRISPR technology; no animal model; can we eliminate “the reservoir?”—here we go again

I’m going to keep this short and sweet. You may have noticed in the news recently a few reports that scientists have been able to “cut ‘HIV’ out of cells” using CRISPR gene editing technology, prompting hopes of a cure. I’m sure you’re familiar with CRISPR (“a genetic engineering technique in molecular biology by which the genomes of living organisms may be modified”, per Wikipedia, which sounds a bit creepy), and we will discuss this further after the following video from the BBC. Before we get started, I would like to make note of the fact that next month, April 23, 2024, is the fortieth anniversary of the infamous Gallo/Heckler press conference at which the “cause of AIDS” was put to bed and a cure promised within two years.

I won’t spend much time on the article, although I will point out that in the pull quote, they state the most important takeaway from the whole study (emphasis mine): “The team eliminated HIV from cells in a laboratory raising hopes of a cure, but cautioned that for now their work represents proof of concept.” Right, our old friend “proof of concept” again, which, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, is defined as “evidence, typically derived from an experiment or pilot project, which demonstrates that a design concept, business proposal, etc., is feasible.” So it’s a model—not a mathematical model, but a model nonetheless. It isn’t anything even approaching proof; it’s evidence that points in a certain direction, which is a nice little loophole to allow for failure. “Proof of concept” is, at best, highly preliminary, and we’ve heard that phrase before about PrEP and its ability to eliminate the “HIV” epidemic.

“Scientists say they can cut ‘HIV’ out of infected cells using Nobel Prize-winning CRISPR gene editing technology,” begins the BBC newscaster, “…although much more work will be needed to ensure it’s safe and effective.” (Safety and efficacy remain real problems in “HIV” treatment.) She interviews a scientist from the Francis Crick Institute, whose name I didn’t catch. He comes out swinging, stating that “if you take your ‘HIV’ medication, you don’t succumb to AIDS.” Note the propagandist technique of repeating the Big Lie right off the bat. And why does no one care about what other horrible events might occur, from kidney and/or liver failure, to broken bones and cardiovascular disease, anemia and more? I guess “cutting ‘HIV’ out of cells” is more important than, you know, the patient’s overall health.

“However, there is a problem here. We can’t get rid of all the virus.” That could be because they’re not actually looking for a unique exogenous virus, but rather snippets of “HIV” associated genetic material that may indeed be endogenous retroviral particles (see Dr. Etienne de Harven’s work), but this scientist falls back on the standard mainstream explanation of why the “proof of concept” we briefly held that the protease inhibitors were going to “end the ‘HIV’ epidemic” failed 25 years ago. That explanation is that there is a pesky “reservoir” in which this wily virus disguises and hides itself. CRISPR to the rescue to eliminate “HIV” from the reservoir! We don’t have a vaccine and we never will, so let’s go ahead and just edit some genes. I’m sure that couldn’t possibly go wrong.

Oh dear, I’m only one third of the way through this video. The scientist then states that “HIV” “goes to sleep for a long, long time.” It goes to sleep? This is the most anthropomorphized alleged infectious agent in history. Moving on. “If we stop taking our medication, we’re back to square one again.” Make this make sense. Herpes, for example, which is said to be “dormant” and “reactivates” from time to time, does not require continual chemotherapy to control; the standard of care is antiviral medication during an active outbreak. Why then does “HIV” require daily chemotherapy for decades, regardless of symptoms?

“This CRISPR-CAS9 technology, then, is our best chance of doing this [eliminating “HIV” from cells].” Our best chance. Oh boy. They’ve really walked their promises back over the decades. From a vaccine and a cure by 1986 to “maybe we can use gene editing technology to cut viral fragments out of cells; who knows, nothing else has worked so far!” (That quote wasn’t from the video, that was my snark.) Yet, despite failure after failure, the propaganda arm of the medical establishment has managed to convince the world that we’ve gotten “HIV” under control with these marvelous drugs. As a commenter pointed out recently, why then is there such focus on PrEP if it’s being used to prevent what is presented as a “chronic, manageable condition” that is no longer really that big a deal? And why do we need “gene editing” technology? I think we know why.

“The experiments we’ve heard about are in cells, they’re not in humans or primates, but there is every hope that this kind of technology will be useful in the future.” Okay, first—the experiments we’ve heard about? The BBC didn’t even manage to snag one of the study authors, but instead interviewed a scientist that had “heard about” this experiment? I will note that from the statement above, it seems that these experiments were conducted in vitro and not in silico, so there’s at least that, but his conclusion is underwhelming. There is every hope that this kind of technology will be useful in the future. We went from “proof of concept” of a “functional cure” to “we hope that this technology might be helpful later, maybe, in some way,” within the space of two minutes. Such is the state of “HIV” science, and has been for decades at this point.

He then gives a quick overview of CRISPR technology in this context, saying that “it consists of a way of delivering an enzyme into a cell that will cut specifically the virus, and this enzyme has guides that will target it to give it its specificity.” Again, not to be redundant, but the anthropomorphic language is really creepy and weird and it has been consistent since the very beginning. It’s almost like the intention is to make this into something much more than a mere infectious agent.

At the end of this clip the newscaster asks the question viewers surely care about (or not), which is how soon can we expect this to translate into a cure for “HIV”? The scientist’s answer is not exactly encouraging, for the first thing out of his mouth in response to her question is, “Well, there are a lot of problems.” (He’s correct about that. That statement says almost nothing about the extent of the problems with this.)

He goes on to say “we don’t know very much about this viral reservoir. There are probably a billion cells that carry these proviruses.” That’s amazing, and it’s even more amazing that with so many billions of cells teeming with “HIV,” scientists still haven’t isolated it. Additionally, he mentions animal studies that suggest “70 or 80 or 90%” of the “reservoir” could be eliminated. “Suppose only 1% of this reservoir survives? Will that reactivate and cause AIDS again?”

And that is where the clip ends, with that hopeful note of encouragement. I don’t have a lot to say about this idiotic idea of attempting to get rid of all “HIV associated genetic material” from this hidden reservoir using gene editing techniques, but I will note the lack of enthusiasm I’m picking up on in these reports. We don’t have a vaccine, we don’t have a cure, people don’t want to take PrEP en masse—heck, we don’t even have a virus. This “great breakthrough” smacks of desperation, and, like I said, the timing may not be coincidental.

To support my work on Substack, please purchase my book for yourself or for a friend, and leave a review on Amazon. You can learn about efforts to ban my book here. You can also buy my new book Almost Cancelled. Or consider becoming a free or paid subscriber!

If you’re a new reader and would like some background as to my views on HIV AIDS, including the “existence” question, please refer to this post and the links contained therein. My interview with Sam Bailey is also a great introduction.