I was reading this article
, and something occurred to me. Here is my response (been edited some since I replied on there). It isn't very 'naturalpathic', but I'm not opposed to looking towards other directions for certain illness.
"This is confusing because it implies viruses are naturally happy with a certain level of food, but the reality of what we know about them (or that I know) is closer to bacteria. They are opportunistic in nature, always seeking to eat and multiply. That is what they do... just in different ways.
Could it be these more robust versions of viruses don't naturally reproduce as fast, so we don't typically see them as much? But if you stress the immune system you allow them to propagate consistently for a longer period of time?
When I read this, my thought was 'cure for HIV?' I was being optimistic thinking about the possibility of displacement. But actually the possibility for something more like super-HIV could occur from we what know. I guess testing on how HIV responds to competition, in evolution, could be interesting. Is it possible for a virus to evolve so well that by creating such a strong outer-layer it could actually slow down how fast it replicates (inserts itself into cells and eats), and perhaps squelch the ability to interact with a lot of the regular food buffet it is use too? See, if you introduced competition that had to be fed with introduced food, but it forced/allowed changes in the HIV, you could selectively stop the evolution changes by not feeding the introduced virus at the most opportune time.
I suppose the idea might just be a way to kill the host quicker, but I'll stick with optimism.
What if the person who was cured with the bone marrow transplant wasn't cured because of the re-energized immune system with fresh not-so-taxed marrow, but rather because of the gap in immunity that allowed evolution of the HIV to turn into something that was giving heritable qualities associated not with speed and evasion but something else?"