Print 45 comment(s) - last by Futureriff.. on Sep 7 at 10:44 PM

The left panel shows treated and untreated cells in regards to the common cold virus (rhinovirus) while the right panel shows treated and untreated monkey cells in regards to dengue hemorrhagic fever virus  (Source: Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
Double-stranded RNA Activated Caspase Oligomerizers (DRACOs) could be the answer for terminating viruses like H1N1 influenza, stomach viruses, a polio virus, several types of hemorrhagic fever and dengue fever

Viruses like the common cold and influenza are infections that we occasionally must ride out. All anyone can really do is rest and take medications to ease the symptoms, which can range from congestion to fever to vomiting. Other viruses, such as Ebola, can be potentially fatal due to Ebola hemorrhagic fever.

While many bacterial infections can be treated with antibiotics, not many viral infections can be treated with medications. Only a "handful" can fight viruses, like the protease inhibitors to control HIV, but most other treatments only relieve the symptoms, and even that can take several days in some cases. Viruses are difficult to attack because they change and replicate in healthy cells.

But now, a team of researchers at MIT's Lincoln Laboratory may have found the cure for the common cold as well as many other viruses like H1N1 influenza, stomach viruses, a polio virus, several types of hemorrhagic fever and dengue fever. The team, led by Todd Rider, a senior staff scientist in Lincoln Laboratory's Chemical, Biological and Nanoscale Technologies Group, created therapeutic agents called Double-stranded RNA Activated Caspase Oligomerizers (DRACOs) which have successfully terminated viral infections.

Viruses infect cells by taking over the cell entirely and multiplying. While making copies of themselves, the viruses also produce long strings of double-stranded RNA (dsRNA). This is not found in animal or human cells.

To fight these infected cells, healthy human cells have proteins that bind to dsRNA, which then prompts a series of reactions that work to stop the virus from making copies of itself. The problem is that the virus can block one of the healthy cells' series of steps to prevent its replication somewhere down the line, allowing the virus to change and further reproduce once again.

To remedy this problem, Rider and his team mixed a dsRNA protein with another protein that causes cells to go through apoptosis, which is programmed cell suicide. One end of the DRACO binds to dsRNA while the other end is instructed to launch cell suicide.

Also, each DRACO consists of a "delivery tag" that they received from naturally occurring proteins. This allows it to enter any human or animal by crossing cell membranes, meaning that it can combat a broad spectrum of viruses, possibly including new outbreaks.

The team tested the DRACOs in human and animal cells cultured in the lab as well as mice infected with the H1N1 influenza virus. They found that DRACO left the mice fully cured of the infection, and that DRACO is not toxic to these animals. In addition, DRACO only targeted cells with dsRNA present while leaving healthy cells alone.

Rider and his team are now testing DRACO on other viruses in mice, and hope to eventually test it on larger animals and humans.

This study was published in PLoS One.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

You Always Have To Question...
By Egglick on 8/30/2011 12:31:43 AM , Rating: 2
When I hear about this sort of stuff, it makes me incredibly uneasy. It goes without saying that micro-organisms replicate and evolve unbelievably fast. Whatever "weapon" they think they've found, the viruses WILL adapt, they WILL become resistant, and in the end they'll emerge stronger than they ever were before.

Just look at bacteria and antibiotics. Super-resistant strains of diseases we thought were no longer a problem.....people dying from simple staph infections. The skat hasn't even completely hit the fan yet in that regard.

The ONLY way to attack a disease is to completely wipe it off the map; like we did with smallpox and polio. Other than and keep a healthy immune system.

RE: You Always Have To Question...
By LordanSS on 8/30/2011 4:43:57 AM , Rating: 3
Bacteria and their antibiotic resistance has been evolving rapidly in the last couple decades, but much of that is our own fault.

Doctors prescribing antibiotics unnecessarily, and patients not completing the whole treatment or using antibiotics for things it has no use (like, taking antibiotics because they've caught a cold).

As an example, tuberculosis is becoming a bigger problem in many places. Something that was simpler in the past now has strands that are virtually incurable. There is a number of patients that stop taking their antibiotics as soon as their symptoms disappear, instead of completing the whole treatment cycle. The disease returns, and this time resistant to those drugs. Depending on what antibiotics they were using to begin with, it could now be fatal.

RE: You Always Have To Question...
By jtesoro on 8/30/2011 6:25:41 AM , Rating: 2
What's annoying is that I've never heard a doctor that prescribed antibiotics stressing that the entire treatment be completed. It's like they didn't know, or care about things like this.

"Buy 21 of these and take them 3x a day. Next!"

RE: You Always Have To Question...
By jeepga on 8/30/2011 8:26:29 AM , Rating: 5
You must have a bad doctor. I've heard it from every single doctor. I rarely go to the doctor, but my daughter and ex-wife did. Each time I was with them they were adamant about completing the entire round of antibiotics.

RE: You Always Have To Question...
By Mitch101 on 8/30/2011 9:39:11 AM , Rating: 2
He probably has an HMO plan they barely look at you all they do is give you a prescription and if your alive in a few days they may look at you again. Its close to a witch doctor with the ability to prescribe medication.

RE: You Always Have To Question...
By rcc on 8/30/2011 4:22:08 PM , Rating: 2
Most pharmacies I've gone to lately put a label on the antibiotic bottles now to "Finish the entire bottle regardless of whether you feel better"

By Dr of crap on 8/30/2011 8:57:49 AM , Rating: 1
You must have a bad Dr.
Every doctor my family has makes sure we know to take every pill of the antibiotic until it's gone.

Everyone should know by now that if you stop taking them you'll only have the problem come back and also make the bug stronger!

You'd better search for a NEW doctor!

RE: You Always Have To Question...
By banthracis on 8/30/2011 10:25:37 AM , Rating: 5
You are actually quite wrong.

First, this isn't a single treatment, it's a potential new class of treatments if demonstrated to be safe in humans.

Similar to how the discovery of penicillin sparked the antibiotic revolution. There has been tremendous advancement and penicillin is nothing like modern antibiotics, the ONLY similarity is that they attack peptidoglycan in bacterial cell walls.

Second, the ability to bind to dsRNA is the real advancement here. While viruses will probably adapt by modifying targeted binding sites, if the technique works, we can simply modify the binding end of the molecule to either another binding site or the adapted binding site.

Third, to wipe a disease off the map, you have 1 of two approaches. The first is to vaccinate the entire population against a virus quickly enough, that the natural reservoirs die out before a virus adapts. IE, smallpox and polio. Both are extinct not because we killed them all, but because there is not longer a large population vulnerable to them for them to gain a foothold.

I can kill viruses or bacteria a hundred different ways in the lab. Killing bacteria or viruses with 100% effectiveness is very easy. The hard part is finding a way that doesn't kill the host at the same time. The solution is to target a factor unique to the pathogen and target it. Despite your hyperbole, antibiotics have saved millions of lives since their inception and they work because they target a compound unique to bacteria, peptidoglycan, so no matter how strongly we target it, we won't directly harm any human cells.

Antibiotics are far from ineffective, and we've "wiped off the map" many infectious strains of bacteria. The classic example would be the strains of yersinis pestis responsible for the "black death" plagues in Europe.

Up till now, it has been very difficult to target something unique to viruses, this is one promising approach.

The worldwide mortality rate dropped tremendously after the invention of antibiotics. Infant mortality dropped 52% in the years after the discovery of penicillin and despite your alarmist views, it has only decreased since then. Infant mortality the probably the best indicator of a populations vulnerability to pathogens as they are one of the weakest populations against them.

If this new approach results in an antibiotic like approach for treating ds viral diseases, it nothing but good news for humanity.

RE: You Always Have To Question...
By Raraniel on 8/30/2011 11:53:00 AM , Rating: 2
I absolutely agree with banthracis on 99% of his points. Penicillin was the first beta lactam antibiotic we discovered, and from our knowledge of its activity we were able to generate several distinct antibiotics without even modifying the beta lactam ring structure. From there, we created new classes of antibiotics that don't use beta lactam rings to inhibit peptidoglycan formation and instead attack other unique aspects of bacterial physiology, such as bacterial ribosomes.

Antibiotics and vaccination, alongside improved sanitary conditions, were responsible for the jump in average life expectancy from a high of around 50 at the turn of the 20th century to an average of around 75 years at the turn of the 21st. While having an effective tool against viral infections will be useful for combating infectious disease, the current limitation to human life expectancy is the prevalence of cancers associated with aging, breakdown of vasculature associated with aging, and neurodegeneration associated with aging. If we can overcome these challenges who knows what length and quality of life humans might be able to achieve.

By geddarkstorm on 8/30/2011 12:10:23 PM , Rating: 2
We won't need to modify dsRNA binding protein. Any dsRNA will be bound just by the virtue of being dsRNA. Nothing in the sequence is required, so there's nothing the viruses can change. That's part of the beauty of this: the virus isn't what's being targeted, it's our own cellular pathways that are ubiquitous yet unique solely to the viral infected state.

RE: You Always Have To Question...
By Egglick on 8/30/2011 3:28:20 PM , Rating: 1
What part am I wrong about? The fact that the viruses will evolve and eventually find a way to become resistant to the treatment? You'd have to be pretty naive to think that they won't.

No matter what you do, there will always be doctors who over-prescribe and people who don't take the medication properly. In the short term, these treatments will probably be incredibly effective and save many lives. Some strains may be wiped out altogether, but not all of them will. In the long term, we will need to constantly alter the way the treatments work in order for them to remain effective, and we will also end up with a handful of super-resistant viruses that can get really out of hand.

Of course, that last result might be something that takes 50+ years to happen. I still think we're some years off from seeing the ramifications of our antibacterial/antibiotic use that started in the 1930's.

RE: You Always Have To Question...
By geddarkstorm on 8/30/2011 4:46:35 PM , Rating: 2
And what would they evolve and change? Do you know how this is working? It isn't going after the virus, it's going after viral infected parts of you.

Or, do you know how bacteria gain resistance to antibiotics? Antibiotics attack some part of the bacteria, and they either start overexpressing a protein that digests the antibiotic (common), pump it out of their cells, or modify the antibiotic's target (very rare) so it's no longer applicable. A virus has no control over how your cells are designed to work; they can only co-op the machinery that's already there to do their bidding. Think about how resistance actually works, for a minute; also realize it's not an all or nothing thing, it's simply changing the sliding scale of dosage higher and higher. Our medicine is also staying head of the resistance game, and bacteria don't simply gain a resistance and keep it forever--it's a constant tug of war. There will always be working antibiotics.

Bacteria and viruses are quite different in how they mutate and share genes as well. Bacteria are promiscuous, and can give each other a solution to a problem. Viruses don't, they can only pull out host factors (very rare) or modify what they already have using low fidelity replication (common, made into an art form by HIV). Since, again, this treatment does not bother with any actual part of the viruses themselves, there is nothing of their own proteins they can modify to have any effect.

There are still theoretically ways they could garner resistance, but they would be highly specific, easily circumvented, and very hard to gain. The greatest challenge would be your own immune system identifying the treatment protein and destroying it before it has a chance to act. That is the greatest barrier, and a type of resistance you could gain on the fly.

By MasterBlaster7 on 8/30/2011 5:48:31 PM , Rating: 2 should chop your head off now and unburden the human race of your alarmist stupidity.

That being said...viruses are also not nearly as adaptable as bacteria. There is a lot less to work with.

Yes, every time antibiotics are taken for the wrong reason it increases the chances of a resistant mutation. Additionally, every time antibiotics are taken for the right reason it increases the chances of a resistant mutation. If antibiotics are used at all, for any reason, the chances of a resistant mutation are increased. Because, if the antibiotic kills a million leaves 20 or so bacteria that happen to have a mutation that resists the antibiotic...if these resistant bacteria may have a superbug. But it doesnt matter as science marches on...we will eventually get those bugs too. It really comes down to science v. mutation...and I put my money on science.

And, on a related note...this is possibly a HUGE breakthrough...right up there with the Kanzius Machine. I really hope this DRACO makes it through human trials.

By MrBlastman on 8/30/2011 10:33:38 PM , Rating: 2
Apoptosis is apopotosis man. Re-read about how the mechanisms work here. We are binding the virus to the cell and then cause the cell to kill itself--i.e. suicide. The virus dies with the cell. It doesn't get the opportunity to evolve here.

That's also the scary thing--to know that inside you your cells are dying off as a result of the treatment. However, a lot of times viruses either mutate or kill off the host cell anyways so it is pretty much a wash.

By chemist1 on 8/29/2011 10:05:14 PM , Rating: 5
...that it will not work against retroviruses, like HIV, since even though they are ssRNA viruses, after infecting a cell they incorporate their genetic material into the cell's DNA (they convert their ssRNA to the corresponding dsDNA). Thus they do not use a dsRNA intermediate (I believe this is the case, but if there are any virologists out there hopefully they will correct me if I'm wrong).* Likewise, it will not work against DNA-based viruses, like herpes. Nevertheless, most viruses that have been identified and sequenced are non-retrovirus ssRNA viruses, which is what this is designed for.

*[Curiously, the intro. to the PLOS article specifically mentions retroviruses as among those for which better approaches are needed. It seems odd they would, in this context, mention a class of viruses against which there approach is ineffective. Any virologists out there who would care to comment?]

By chemist1 on 8/29/2011 10:08:00 PM , Rating: 2
oops: "...*their* approach..."
why no edit button?

By Qapa on 8/30/2011 6:28:31 AM , Rating: 2
No, not strange at all => if they want to be taken seriously (and they, for sure, do) they should state what this is good for, and what it does not accomplish.

Otherwise people would believe them (scientists) as much as people believe in marketing ;)

In other words, you could say they are miss-advertising, trying to fool you, etc...

So, it makes perfect sense.

By banthracis on 8/30/2011 10:30:08 AM , Rating: 3
It's common and in fact a requirement of a good paper to discuss both limits and potential for any discovery. Scientific papers aren't marketing, we're concerned with furthering the body of science not creating hype. Drugs companies exist for the latter purpose.

By geddarkstorm on 8/30/2011 2:01:12 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, HIV also makes dsRNA as part of the production of its proteins and replication (see for one of the proteins responsible for transcribing HIV dsRNA during infection).

In fact, I know of no known viral family that does not, inevitably, create dsRNA during the course of infection. That's why this is so bloody cool. It's also why your body has an entire branch of cellular immunity based on detecting dsRNA and triggering defenses (such as oligoA polymerase, DICER, interferon production, and apoptosis).

The limitation with retroviruses is when they are incorporated in your DNA (during latent, non replicating phase) they are invisible, and can't be targeted via this method. Consequently, your own immune system also cannot attack retroviruses (or any latent virus, such as Herpes) while they are not in a replicating phase.

To this end, more needs to be done to find and target cells harboring retrovirus DNA so they too can be eliminated and keep the virus from coming back out of your own genome. Sure, this new method could attack the virus once it is active again, but you'll have to perpetually do that every time it activates if we cannot eliminate the latent cells.

Interestingly enough, herpes and other latent viruses do transcribe basal factors (such as the "lasso" like RNA that herpes makes). So there is a way to eventually attack them when in their steal mode, in theory. The question is how, and that question is very much unanswered.

By chemist1 on 8/30/2011 6:36:56 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks for providing that additional info. about the ubiquity of dsRNA in viral reproduction! Very interesting.

Given what you explained, it now also makes sense why they mentioned retroviruses as an example of organisms against which better therapies are needed (even thought they didn't say their therapy would be potentially effective against them).

So, that's how it starts...
By mitchebk on 8/30/2011 12:03:40 PM , Rating: 4
I'm pretty sure this is how the Zombie Apocalypse starts. The article reads that the treatment causes infected cells to commit suicide, right?

Well, what if normal cells were commanded to commit suicide? Then, people would begin to decay from the inside out giving them the desire/appetite for fresh human flesh to replace their own decaying flesh.

This is going to be a problem.

By geddarkstorm on 8/30/2011 12:07:06 PM , Rating: 2
Your normal cells commit suicide all the time. It is required for healthy cell turn over. In fact, part of aging is cells no longer doing this process correctly, and it's part of why your skin stops being healthy, thins, and loses strength and elasticity.

So, ironically enough, stopping apoptosis leads to decay, keeping it going leads to regeneration. (as long as you don't target the stem cells, if that happens and you lost those, you would go through rapid aging)

RE: So, that's how it starts...
By geddarkstorm on 8/30/2011 12:13:04 PM , Rating: 2
Err, not to be a downer on your joke of course XD. Just an excited biologist here who is currently geeking out!

Who knows, maybe you're right and I'm just another of our hubris filled researchers bringing about the downfall of mankind through science gone wrong!

RE: So, that's how it starts...
By mitchebk on 8/30/2011 3:43:06 PM , Rating: 1
Uh, joking, but good info on the aging process. All jokes aside, this is something to truly get geeked about. I'm not sure how the cold medicine industry will react (perhaps strong push-back via their lobbists), but it will be interesting to see if this potential breakthrough actually makes it store shelves.

By BugblatterIII on 9/5/2011 5:10:58 PM , Rating: 2
Zombies who don't get colds.

You have to look at the big picture.

By idiot77 on 8/29/2011 9:57:55 PM , Rating: 2
I think it is highly likely that we will select viruses that are resistant to this (likely in the form of something that inhibits the DRACO).

So while this is a great break through... it's not going to be a cure all in all likelihood. In fact, it may have some serious unintended consequences.

RE: Resistance
By Gondor on 8/30/2011 3:27:27 AM , Rating: 2
The article mentions "programmed cell suicide". I wonder how many cells it is on average that this method would destroy in order to eradicate a case of common influenza in a normal person ? 1% ? 10% ? 0.1% ? Anybody have a number handy ?

RE: Resistance
By Jeremy87 on 8/30/2011 6:42:43 AM , Rating: 2
Destroy 10% of your cells? Are you serious?
I'd say more like 0.0000001%. And aren't those cells "lost" already anyway because of the virus?

RE: Resistance
By MasterBlaster7 on 8/31/2011 10:11:25 PM , Rating: 2
That would be a hard number to come by. What type of infection? What is the time of infection? what is the rate of infection? what is the speed of cell insertion after administration of Draco? almost need a supercomputer. But yah..I would say .0000001 or something like doesnt take a ton of infected cells to give you a bad day.

Bad management
By drycrust3 on 8/30/11, Rating: 0
RE: Bad management
By Dr of crap on 8/30/2011 9:01:50 AM , Rating: 1
You repeat a lot don't you?

And do you think I should move because I live where it's below 10°F for many, many days during the WINTER months.

So I should not pick my nose and move somewhere warm or just stay inside so my nose doesn't get cold!


RE: Bad management
By drycrust3 on 8/30/2011 2:32:13 PM , Rating: 2
I was expecting a lot more anger about being right than what you've expressed.
Firstly, as one would expect in any good piece of science, the temperature scale used is the internationally recognised centigrade or Celsius scale, not the Fahrenheit scale. The temperature I am talking about is 10 - 14 deg Centigrade, also known as 10 to 14 degrees Celsius, not 10 degrees Fahrenheit. The scales are different. 10 degrees Celsius is not the same as 10 degrees Fahrenheit! How much more clearly do you want me to express this?
Secondly, I didn't say you needed to move to a warm climate, I said that if you manage the way you look after your nose then that goes a long way to avoiding getting the flu, which would make living where you do much more enjoyable.
Since you live in a place where the temperatures are well below freezing point, then there are really two approaches to avoiding the flu. One approach, which is what people have used for thousands of years, is essentially a combination of random chance and "well, this works, but I don't know why"; while the other, which is what I proposed, is a more scientific and managed approach.
What is difficult to understand about "cold air damages the tissues inside your nose"? Is that difficult to understand? What would you expect "10°F" air to do to your skin? You would expect it to be injured. If that is what happens to the skin you can see, then what happens inside your nose?
Or what is difficult to understand about "the inside of the nose is a filter"? Sure, that isn't the scientific way to say it, but most people will understand what I wrote. If you damage a filter system, what would you expect to happen? You would expect stuff to get through that shouldn't. So what would you expect to happen if you damage the nose's filtering capabilities? You would expect stuff to get through that shouldn't, and one of those "stuff" is bacteria. So if you damage the nose's filtering capabilities then you would expect bacteria to get through, and then you would expect to get some sort of throat infection. Does that sound familiar?
Next, understanding why your nose gets congested is important to managing your nose. You obviously understand why paying for heating in the winter is important: because it stops you getting sick.
Not understanding why your nose gets congested means that when it happens you don't know whether it is a good thing or not, and if you take the wrong approach to this then you would expect to either get sick or hinder healing, and one of the very common progressions from "a cold" is to get the flu.
My proposition is that congestion in your nose is God's way of allowing the nose to heal, and that by understanding this then when your nose does get congested you know that your nose is trying to heal itself. As such, the correct approach to a congested nose is to consider the congestion as a "quasi-normal process" (meaning "a normal process when things go wrong") and that it is what caused your nose to get injured in the first place (e.g. being in freezing cold air for too long) as the "abnormal process" that needs to be remedied, and not the congested nose.

RE: Bad management
By aharris02 on 8/30/2011 10:22:42 AM , Rating: 2
Formatting for readability = win.
Wall of text = fail.

RE: Bad management
By drycrust3 on 8/30/2011 2:43:16 PM , Rating: 2
And science is about being right.

pharmaceutical company coverups
By picon on 8/30/2011 3:54:34 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sure this story and the research will eventually disappear and never materialize as a cure of any sort for viruses. I'm always suspicious that the big pharmaceutical companies would see this as a threat to their steady income from symptom suppresants. What would the cost of a common cold cure be to ensure they make the same or more money since no one will buy cold medication anymore?

RE: pharmaceutical company coverups
By Arbie on 8/30/2011 4:08:35 PM , Rating: 3
So - you think the evil drug company executives are going to put up with their own viral infections, and those of their families, in order to (your inference) make more money than they could by selling a remedy for these things? Then you probably also think they're suppressing the cure for cancer, while dying from it themselves.

It doesn't matter how good the news is, *somebody* will insist that it's all a conspiracy. That takes no brainpower to do, and is always popular. The fact that it makes no sense is immaterial. Spare us.

By talikarni on 9/2/2011 5:08:48 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed.... look up DCA and its cancer fighting properties. Its been floating around for some time but curing cancer is not good business practice either which is why none of the usual sources fund it, or even if they do get funding, they are paid off to say it had no effect.

Shedding some light
By geddarkstorm on 8/30/2011 12:04:32 PM , Rating: 5
Reading the comments, I can see there is some important details that need to be elucidated about why this is so amazing; and why, unlike other antivirals, viruses won't be able to mutate themselves out of this one.

There are three parts of our immune system. Most everyone knows about the adaptive (antibodies), and some know about the innate (inflammation). But the third part of the immune system is the intrinsic, which is the immune system INSIDE each and every cell itself. It's designed specifically to fight off viruses. There are three main effectors that drive this intrinsic, cellular, immune system; but the core of it all is the dsRNA binding protein. That protein is what this article is about.

dsRNA leads to RNA interference which is how we generally resist most viruses. But what this team of researchers have brilliantly done, is make a fusion protein putting dsRNA binding protein fused to a caspase. Caspases are proteinases (slice up and destroy proteins) that trigger a cell's autodestruct sequence. Autodestructing destroys the intruding virus(es) as well, and is a primary means the body uses to stop acute viral infections before the adaptive immune system kicks in a week down the road.

By using the anti-viral scanner (dsRNA binding protein) and fusing it with the autodestruct protein, these researchers have made a chimera that will detect basically any viral infection (yes INCLUDING retroviruses like HIV, when not in latent phase) and trigger a cell to nuke itself and the virus.

Since this is being mediated solely through HOST factors (your own cells and your own proteins), a virus can do little to mutate and stop this, as it's not targeting anything the virus has, but yourself. Us humans would have to mutate to nullify this method of killing viruses, and that's not going to happen for a very, very long time if ever.

All this together truly makes this a potential cure as revolutionary as antibiotics. You are looking at the potential future: a single pill or injection that can wipe out a viral infection from your body; and to which viruses can't rapidly build resistance.

You what to know what's better? Linking these caspases to other sensor proteins may allow us to target and eliminate all sorts of aberrant cells that have unique signals or states, such as cancer.

Sounds interesting, but...
By amanojaku on 8/29/2011 9:59:27 PM , Rating: 2
What's the effect on the immune system? Does this improve our natural resistance, or does it weaken us, instead? I'm not going to undergo a treatment that gives me perfect health, at the risk of compromising my health if I skip treatments.

Sounds Like a Sci-Fi Novel:
By Arsynic on 8/30/2011 9:33:06 AM , Rating: 2
"To fight these infected cells, healthy human cells have proteins that bind to dsRNA, which then prompts a series of reactions that work to stop the virus from making copies of itself. The problem is that the virus can block one of the healthy cells' series of steps to prevent its replication somewhere down the line, allowing the virus to change and further reproduce once again."

What an epic battle taking place in our bodies. It's amazing how all of this magically came to be out of nothing.

Drug mafias
By talikarni on 9/2/2011 4:42:45 PM , Rating: 2
These Pharmaceutical companies and doctors will not allow anything like this. They make entirely too much money (aka overcharging) treating symptoms, not finding cures. If most of the population is healed, most drug companies and doctors would go out of business, and they couldn't have that.

I suspect this will be one of the last times we will ever hear about this situation, the research will be bought and buried, just like the cheap cancer curing dichloroacetate (DCA) that they have been attempting to keep buried for a few years now.

Drug companies will love this
By Futureriff on 9/7/2011 10:44:43 PM , Rating: 2
My reasoning for this statement is simple: think about how vaccines work. This approach doesn't educate the body's immune system or the cell's internal processes to recognize and attack, it only reacts to the viral infection of a cell.

Therefore, say for the flu, each winter you get infected and when the symptoms appear, you go to your friendly doctor who gives you a prescription and the flu goes away. Next winter, you may get infected again, and so off you go to the doctor for another treatment.

And so on and so on it goes.

While this approach may, in the long run, wipe out certain types of human-based flus, most likely new flu strains will appear anyway (as they are doing today) in animal vectors and cross over to humans.

While companies that make cough medicines and such may complain initially, this may actually free up a lot of money that can be invested in research to overcome the increasingly prevalent aging-related diseases and problems.

By 2bdetermine on 8/30/2011 1:05:33 AM , Rating: 1
Drug companies said otherwise.

Never will hit the market...
By AMDftw on 8/30/11, Rating: 0
RE: Never will hit the market...
By paydirt on 8/30/2011 9:05:19 AM , Rating: 1
They MUST NOT SELL OUT, but since it was developed at M.I.T. the government can simply take the invention for themselves (and shelf it).

"A lot of people pay zero for the cellphone ... That's what it's worth." -- Apple Chief Operating Officer Timothy Cook

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki