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

91–100 of 115 posts

Re: From MIT, a cure for all viruses?

#91

Post by xanadohnt »

seclorum wrote: post #72
sukuriant wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I came on to inquire precisely that. This would most likely kill the good viruses, too. What are they going to do to counteract those virii death?

I'm guessing they can target the virus RNA they're attempting to eradicate.

No, you are correct, sukuriant. The mechanism here is working on the host cell. Which is precisely the point of the article. Past attempts at working on the virus directly have all but failed. That's why this method is so effective and promising. However, its effectiveness is also what makes it so scary.

Re: From MIT, a cure for all viruses?

#92

Post by xanadohnt »

seclorum wrote: post #72
sukuriant wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I came on to inquire precisely that. This would most likely kill the good viruses, too. What are they going to do to counteract those virii death?

I'm guessing they can target the virus RNA they're attempting to eradicate.

No, you are correct, sukuriant. The mechanism here is working on the host cell. Which is precisely the point of the article. Past attempts at working on the virus directly have all but failed. That's why this method is so effective and promising. However, its effectiveness is also what makes it so scary.

Re: From MIT, a cure for all viruses?

#93

Post by nullflux »

nullflux wrote: post #49
wvenable wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I have a basic understanding of how viruses work at the cellular level. The problem is that DRACO doesn't seem to kill the virus; it stops its propagation. There is a big difference in the way it works from a broad-spectrum antibiotic and seems more damaging.

Let's say you're really sick with the flu -- that means a lot of cells have that virus. The virus replicates and the cell eventually dies and releases hundreds or thousands of viruses.

From how I read this, DRACO stops the process by killing cells that are making the virus once they are infected with the virus. If I don't have an antibody for the virus or I have a bad immune system, DRACO is going to end up killing one cell for every one virus that exists in my circulatory system. DRACO is ineffective on the virus when it is spreading. Yes, it stops the spread so your immune system can catch up, I guess, but what if I'm already really sick?

Re: From MIT, a cure for all viruses?

#94

Post by ohashi »

vajrabum wrote: post #42
ohashi wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Ah, I forgot that about that part. It were engineered into us that is an interesting and very different scenario than what I was thinking of (simply taking it to cure/remove/kill viruses)

Re: From MIT, a cure for all viruses?

#95

Post by weaksauce »

cowkingdeluxe wrote: post #70
robomartin wrote: post #48

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 strainin…

Yeah, I had to take the time to implement a custom stylish style for the website in firefox before I started reading it.

instapaper read now work well on this and other sites.

readability is good too but they changed to a pay model but I think you can still use the bookmarklette for free.

Re: From MIT, a cure for all viruses?

#96

Post by nitrogen »

huxley wrote: post #27

When I first saw it I though it was fake. But seriously, PANACEA and DRACO? Is Dr. Todd Rider trolling the crazies? For example: http://youtu.be/EneiDKw_zXg tl;dr: DRACO is attempt by Reptilians to corrupt human DNA, underwater cages, etc

Thanks for the tl;dr. I found myself unable to continue listening to the narrator's slow, halting, breathy voice.

IMO, and unrelated to this video, it's a good reason to provide a transcript of videos (advice I myself rarely follow) -- people with bad voices (or good voices that inexplicably annoy some people) can still have interesting things to say.

Re: From MIT, a cure for all viruses?

#97

Post by driverdan »

smogzer wrote: post #18

Go to kickstarter or some other funding method that will NOT patent or copyright this. Something like the JOBS acts would provide. This is too disruptive to have in the hands of big pharma.

Kickstarter isn't going to provide the hundreds of millions of dollars it costs to take a drug through the FDA approval process.

Re: From MIT, a cure for all viruses?

#98

Post by javajosh »

lell wrote: post #21

I read the plos article when it came out. Basically, when a cell realises it is infected with a virus sometimes it will try to kill itself. There are a bunch of checks it does to make sure killing itself is a good idea. Many viruses try to counter these checks. DRACO works by short circuiting the detection -> kill self pathway. It's a great idea. But sometimes a large proportion of cells can get infected when you hav…

This was addressed in the article: almost all viruses kill their host cell anyway, so killing the infected host cell faster doesn't add any risk or harm. Taking the infected cell out of circulation means that a lot fewer cells get infected so it's a net win.

Re: From MIT, a cure for all viruses?

#99

Post by bubfranks »

tokenadult wrote: post #82

My all-time favorite link to put in an HN comment is the one I will put here, "Warning Signs in Experimental Design and Interpretation" http://norvig.com/experiment-design.html by Peter Norvig, LISP hacker and now director of research at Google. I hope the preliminary research findings discussed in the interview submitted here are replicated and prove to have clinical benefit for human patients. Finding out whether o…

hah, great username. I didn't know HN had a chaperon. btw, thanks for posting that link, and thanks to Peter Norvig!

Re: From MIT, a cure for all viruses?

#100

Post by [deleted] »

jerf wrote: post #24
lell wrote: post #21

I read the plos article when it came out. Basically, when a cell realises it is infected with a virus sometimes it will try to kill itself. There are a bunch of checks it does to make sure killing itself is a good idea. Many viruses try to counter these checks. DRACO works by short circuiting the detection -> kill self pathway. It's a great idea. But sometimes a large proportion of cells can get infected when you hav…

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

[deleted]
Post reply on HN