Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

From MIT, a cure for all viruses?

process.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 115 posts

Re: From MIT, a cure for all viruses?

#41

Post by Symmetry »

firefoxman1 wrote: post #39
jerf wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Someone might get in a lot of trouble if all their infected cells instantly died." This was directly addressed in the linked article.

Sounds like a perfect beginning to a real "I am Legend" scenario. Imagine someone releasing a virus that could cross the blood-brain barrier (modified Rabies?) that just infects the cells and causes some minor symptoms that appear to be a standard cold. But anyone who takes this drug will have those brain cells self-destruct right?

I found the author's contention that the cells were about to be killed by the virus anyways fairly convincing, but this is why we have tests in animals first.

Re: From MIT, a cure for all viruses?

#42

Post by vajrabum »

ohashi wrote: post #33
caycep wrote: post #22

its interesting although one potential twist is that viruses may be more the communications vector for genetic material than the actual disease causing process itself (which is the payload). if this gets widely used in the field, will it disrupt "good" things - evolutionary processes, symbiotic infections, etc? Will it disrupt the ability of manmade viruses (i.e. gene therapy) from working?

I have no idea but I am curious as well. The one thing that did stick out was he said it only lasted 48 hours in the body. So presumably, if you were doing something after it left the body, it would have no effect (assuming it works as intended).

In the article the idea of bioengineering Draco into the body was mentioned. My understanding is that in the early stages of pregnancy there's some very weird stuff going on in mammals that appears to involve endogenous retro-viruses. It might be that mammals came into being partly as a result of some reptile having a viral infection that got into some sperm or egg cells. That wouldn't be a reason not to use it as a drug, but the world of biology is very weird and the systems are open in a way computers are not. Viruses have been around for a very long time and like bacteria are embedded into the environment in ways that like fish in water we won't notice until they go away.

Re: From MIT, a cure for all viruses?

#45

Post by rickyconnolly »

It seems that DRACO works by binding double-stranded RNA. This will work for many, but not all, viruses. Viruses can also have single stranded RNA genomes, like influenza, as well as single- and double-stranded DNA genomes, like herpes. Optimistically, this is s cure for a subclass of viruses.

Re: From MIT, a cure for all viruses?

#46

Post by secoif »

I wish more science would get behind crowd funding, then we could potentially have this kind of stuff sooner/at all. I wince at all of the amazing science that doesn't kick off, not because of a lack of feasibility or interest but simply because of a lack of funding.

Re: From MIT, a cure for all viruses?

#47

Post by saulrh »

streptomycin wrote: post #40

I wonder why this got published in PLoS ONE rather than a more traditional and higher impact journal.

It's already been going around the public news circuit for a while, and they undoubtedly got some extra support and funding because it did. PLoS ONE publications are much easier for the public to access.

Re: From MIT, a cure for all viruses?

#48

Post by robomartin »

Sounds promising. It'll be interesting to watch and see how this evolves.

Here's an off-topic comment issued in the spirit of constructive criticism for the site (please don't downvote based on this):

If any HN reader has an account with process.org could you --if you agree, of course-- suggest that a small gray font against a gray background is simply not a good idea? On an iPad without zooming it is really straining to read. On a desktop with a 24 inch 1920 x 1200 monitor it is not comfortable. Bad idea. A larger black font would be best.

Re: From MIT, a cure for all viruses?

#49

Post by nullflux »

wvenable wrote: post #36
syntaxide wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This appeared on reddit a few days ago, and the answer to your question is twofold. First, this has not yet undergone human testing. In the history of pharmaceuticals, there have been many drugs that performed favorably in animal testing yet failed in human testing. It is simply too early to tell if this drug will be successful in humans. Secondly, was the idea that eliminating all viruses, as this seems to do, is no…

The drug kills the cell but the not virus -- your body still has to do that. Given the way that vaccines work, this is probably not going to have a big effect on immunity.

I'm missing a bit of the logic here, then. If I kill the cells infected, won't the latent viruses go and infect a different cell anyway? DRACO appears to be a medical scorched-earth policy.

Re: From MIT, a cure for all viruses?

#50

Post by secoif »

DRACOMALFOA wrote: post #32

Well, sad thing is humans have been creating most of the diseases that have been released into the wild for the past 50 years... Lyme disease, H1N1(now H1N5-X), etc... The reason they do NOT cure diseases is because, overpopulation would explode. Cancer isn't cured for this reason but, they certainly love money for a whole bunch more research. The same can be said with HIV/AIDS. You may think its absurd or wrong in c…

Yep, all medical science researchers worldwide are in on a plot to curb population growth for profit. Definitely.
Post reply on HN