Good rule of thumb: if the title is a question, the answer is no.
If I could downvote you I would. As a scientist, skepticism is lazy and arrogant.
Are you sure about that?
From MIT, a cure for all viruses?
111–115 of 115 posts
Re: From MIT, a cure for all viruses?
#112Go 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.
Honestly, all of the "non-profit" organizations out there who provide "funding" to AIDS research need to blow the bank and get behind something like this.
I "agree".
Re: From MIT, a cure for all viruses?
#113I 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.
If the infected cells tend to live a long time and the antiviral drug kills them all at once then it's a big difference. To see this, take the idea "to the limit":
Imagine if virus-infected cells lived an average of ten years, that the antiviral drug kills every infected cell in the body instantly, and that every cell in the body is infected. The effect of taking the drug in such an instance would be far worse than letting the virus attack the body unchecked.
Now, this obviously isn't a "reasonable" example, but it does show that there are parameters for which there the drug does harm the patient. Determining whether that risk is actually worth worrying about is a job for science.
Re: From MIT, a cure for all viruses?
#114Well, 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.
Sarcasm ^
Re: From MIT, a cure for all viruses?
#115Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
If the infected cells tend to live a long time and the antiviral drug kills them all at once then it's a big difference. To see this, take the idea "to the limit": Imagine if virus-infected cells lived an average of ten years, that the antiviral drug kills every infected cell in the body instantly, and that every cell in the body is infected. The effect of taking the drug in such an instance would be far worse than l…
Ah, but infected cells are hijacked to do the virus' job rather than the job they are intended for so any killed cells weren't aiding the body.