The optimal time to start antiretroviral therapy for HIV-infected patients remains unknown [1–4]. Leaving public health considerations regarding transmission aside, if we are indeed able to diagnose HIV infection in patients at a very early stage, should we intervene with antiviral agents and, if so, for how long [5–7]? What is the potentially achievable long-term impact of highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) initiated around the time of HIV seroconversion, if such treatment is subsequently discontinued: lowering of the viral set point, preservation of CD4+ T cells, a decrease in rates of disease progression, long-term control of HIV viremia, or even viral eradication [8–10]? In contrast, one may argue that very early initiation of HAART may still be provided too late to have a major impact, because virus-induced immunopathogenesis has already taken hold [11–13]. This realization would justify a more conservative treatment approach and the initiation of HAART only during chronic infection, because this approach still allows for substantial immune reconstitution in terms of the CD4+ T cell count, as well as a dramatic decrease in morbidity and mortality, while preventing the potential development of early resistance to antiviral agents and reducing both drug toxicity and cost [14]. The question of the timing of HAART initiation is not trivial, particularly because such studies as the Strategies for Management of Anti-Retroviral Therapy study suggest that HAART initiated during chronic infection cannot be routinely discontinued without substantial risk [1–4, 15]