the post that 'tarvacin' pointed to is a good quick summary. Also, now that a "Duke paper" is being talked about more often, I'll post this stuff again.
in my opinion- When you see the "Duke paper", besides the name Barton Haynes, you'll see the name David Pisetsky, (among others).
The anti-PS MOA they discuss will have to do with more than virus particles, more than apoptotic cells, and more than virally infected cells.
It will have to do with the shed apoptotic debris, (originally called "cell dust" when it was first discussed a few decades ago).
I believe that Haynes, Pisetsky, and the others will put forth the hypothesis that the shed microparticles from apoptotic cells, (which wear exposed PS), are what is responsible for the immune escape / weakened/unsuccessful immune response, seen in HIV infection, (and cancer and other viral infections but I don't know how 'broad' the Duke paper's discussion will be).
I believe that Peregrine's anti-PS antibodies can affect this 'pathway', (a pathway that Pisetsky calls "a novel amplification loop of cell death").
I think anti-PS can turn the tide, reconstitute/refortify the immune response against cancer and chronic viral infections, and I think it does so via cleaning up / covering the PS on this shed debris.
I think that's what we'll be reading about in the "Duke paper", and it has implications for potential therapy of all cancers, viral infections, malaria and other parasitic diseases, atherosclerosis, and other diseases.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
