...

Well, that is great. We need both -- and we need scientists who
understand medicine.

You are obviously highly interested and motivated. So, go for it.

(Your scientific ideas are certainly advanced for someone who still
uses a fraction in stating their age. But most should have grown out
of that three years ago. :-) )

It is hard to respond to some of your specifics. There is a real gap
between the thought experiment and reality -- which I think you
realize.

People have been working on HIV for 2-3 decades now. Progress, but no
final answer. A recent vaccine test was quite a failure.

Antisense is so logical, but has never really worked. Delivery is one
problem. Specificity is another.

RNAi is fairly new. Very promising, and some things are in clinical
tests. Yet there are concerns -- of the same general types. One recent
paper showed that what was intended as RNAi was working without even
entering the cell -- simply being recognized by a TLR as double
stranded RNA. Whether this is good news or bad news is not clear, but
it certainly is news.

So, lots of logical ideas. Then we need to try them -- and tune them.
And see if any work in practice.

Suggestion...

Go to PubMed. Search on

HIV antisense

or

HIV RNAi

or of course your own variations.

Each of these will give you many "hits". Check that the output is
sorted by date, so that most recent items are first. One good trick is
to click on the tab for "reviews"; these are articles that summarize
an area, rather than present a single new piece of work. Both are
good, but reviews can be a good way to get started, to get a feel for
the field.

Then, browse as you wish.

For each item listed where the title intrigues you, click on it, and
you will get the abstract. Browsing 10-20 abstracts doesn't take too
long, and can give you some feel for the current status.

If you want an entire article, click on "links". You may or may not
find that you have access; some things are freely available, some are
not.

Remember, as you read articles, they can get highly technical, and can
easily be intimidating. They can also take a lot of time, so you want
to learn to get the highlights. Just reading the abstract, then the
intro and discussion, will give you the main ideas, including where
the work fits into the big picture. Articles are different from
textbooks! Don't just try to read them straight thru. In fact, you may
rarely read the detailed materials and methods (unless you are
actively working in the field), and you may or may not want to read
the results in detail. You use some judgment about how much time to
spend on each article -- vs looking at more articles (not to mention
whatever else you do with your life).

I've posted some info on using PubMed on my page:
http://www.geocities.com/b_bruner/library.htm
But I suspect what I wrote above is probably enough; just explore.

The idea here is to take all these ideas you have, which show that you
are interested and know much about the system, and now build on
that... read what people are really doing now. And again, caution, it
can get messy.

Do you have access to a university library? If so, you can probably
get more articles by using their library.

I have also sent you a private email -- assuming your address shown is
valid.

Ok, if I try to answer everything, I'll never finish. So I'll post at
this point. I'll try to discuss the cell sorting vs PCR another time.

bob

Ok, I said i would tackle this soemtime.

My intuition is that PCR will win -- on all (most?) counts. Let me
elaborate on my thinking, which is more or less an educated guess.
That way, you can pursue individual points if you want to, rather than
just the bottom line.

Cost can be tricky. Flow cytometry still involves a rather expensive
device, I am fairly sure. Now, if you happen to have one, not fully
utilized, then using it doesn't cost much. But if you have to buy it,
it is a big deal.

Cost of supplies is probably considerably lower for PCR. Making
primers is now routine. Producing antibodies is not.

Sensitivity. PCR is in principle ultra-sensitive, down to "one". That
is not something other techniques can reach. Of course, amplification
is why it works on "one". And people do try to incorporate
amplification into other methods.

Note that there may be different answers for different situations. One
situation is routine clinical use. Another is research use. They have
different needs.

Ok, some thoughts, with some reasons.

bob