The Cure for Cancer Might be: HIV 668
RGautier writes "Wired News has published that Scientists have successfully modified the AIDS-causing HIV in such a way that it can attack metasticized melanoma (cancer cells). The impact of genetic research on cancer research is in and of itself amazing. To mix this with the strategy of using one strong enemy against another is brilliance! Research will continue, obviously, but they are already reporting success on living creatures." Just think: between HIV and carrots we'll be all set.
I have good news and bad news... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:5, Funny)
Exercise (Score:5, Funny)
And the cure for Heart Disease is exercise, which means that we're all doomed.
Oh really? Don't geeks have Dance Dance Revolution?
Re:Exercise (Score:5, Insightful)
I guess that heart beating and sweating and stuff for easily the recommended 15-30 minutes at a time isn't enough... it overloads the easily-overloaded "fun" receptors on the heart and other muscles and cancels out all of the other benefits. The fact that I'm feeling better is also an illusion brought on by excessive fun, which can of course cause hallucinations.
If you're not slamming you feet on hard concrete and hating every minute of it, unless you let go of your sanity and use the cognitive dissonance of "Why the hell am I doing this?" to convince yourself that, logically, you must be having fun, you're not really getting exercise.
Although, maybe I'm jumping the gun on this post. Having heard of neither Heard Disease nor excercise, maybe I'm accidentally reading into what you were saying. Maybe excercise really is the cure for Heard Disease, probably helps Caner too, which I hear is really vicious. (You haven't lived until you're under attack by a Heard of Caners, either. Damn, man, now that's sickness.)
Thanks for setting me straight, Dr. SoTuA.
Good News vs. Bad News Joke (Score:5, Funny)
A guy goes to the doctor about a problem he's having. After a thorough examination, the doctor says to the patient, "I have good news and I have bad news."
"Well doc, let me hear the good news first.", says the patient.
To which the doctor responds, "Well, the good news is, we're going to name a disease after you!"
Re:Good News vs. Bad News Joke (Score:5, Funny)
A scientific explanation (Score:5, Informative)
The REAL good news... (Score:5, Funny)
Sure as hell beats chemo!
*Of coarse I didn't RTFA.
Awful joke. (Score:4, Funny)
--"Well at least I don't have cancer!"
Might want to downplay the HIV thing (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Might want to downplay the HIV thing (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Might want to downplay the HIV thing (Score:3, Funny)
Is that HIV without the adware?
Re:Might want to downplay the HIV thing (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Might want to downplay the HIV thing (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Might want to downplay the HIV thing (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Might want to downplay the HIV thing (Score:5, Insightful)
Best to be as open as possible right from the start to avoid any misconceptions. (Or media backlash.)
Re:Might want to downplay the HIV thing (Score:5, Insightful)
That's what I thought, when I was working on Nuclear Magnetic Resonance ( NMR ) which was changed to Magnetic Resonance Imaging ( MRI ) because too many people were afraid of the word nuclear.
Re:Might want to downplay the HIV thing (Score:3)
Re:Might want to downplay the HIV thing (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Might want to downplay the HIV thing (Score:3, Funny)
Outrageous! I demand reparations!
Re:Might want to downplay the HIV thing (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is that, exactly? Think of the other dreaded word which invokes a guaranteed knee-jerk reaction from just about anyone: radiation. What's the worst thing you can put in your body? Poison. Our current treatments for cancer involve heavy doses of radiation and heavy doses of toxic chemicals.
As a society, we're pretty familiar with using some amazingly deadly tactics against cancer, and yet, you don't see a whole lot of healthy people screaming about their exposure to those deadly glowing, poisonous cancer patients.
Re:Might want to downplay the HIV thing (Score:5, Interesting)
"Scientists could customize the system to target any protein on the surface of a cell"
Target the protiens on a group of humans, Kurdish, Jewish, Korean, whatever. Many groups of humans have some genes that are particular to their genetic heritage. Target those geenes to make something worse, instant selective genocide.
-nB
Re:Might want to downplay the HIV thing (Score:4, Interesting)
Alternatively, someone with Sickle-Cell Anaemia could modify it to attack healthy bone marrow. The healthier a person was, the more deadly the attack would be to them.
The problem (or, for humanity, the good thing) is that HIV is not very stable. It would be next to impossible to make an airborne strain of it.
A far, far greater concern for humanity is that there are airborne strains of Ebola. If someone were to take an airborne Ebola and somehow merge in the targetting system in HIV, you could engineer a device capable of destruction on a scale Western civilization has no comprehension of.
Re:Might want to downplay the HIV thing (Score:5, Interesting)
HIV is the opposite extreme. It's latency period is so long that someone will be infected for years if not decades before the infection is detected. HIV is a large, complex, and fickle virus.
There is already something airborne, virilent, and with a just short enough but just long enough incubation time. It's called influenza and it kills millions per year. And it has been killing people for as long as we have been keeping track of epidemics.
Marketing (Score:5, Funny)
No, that's not how it works. (Score:5, Funny)
Recent market research shows the phenominal popularity of words that connect with Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, and Harry Potter. Furthermore, they also show the connection with immortality or avoidance of death by characters in those phenomina.
As such, the best possible name is Darth Voldemort's Precioussss One Ring Remedy.
And another thing (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Might want to downplay the HIV thing (Score:3, Insightful)
Carboplatin isn't infectious.
Now, you and I understand that the HIV used for this therapy would be highly modified from the original plague, but I suspect that the majority of people wouldn't know (or care) about the differences. On the other hand, it's pretty well understood that most poisons are completely localized to the people who ingest them.
Re:Might want to downplay the HIV thing (Score:3, Insightful)
But does it really matter to the people who would benefit from this?
Doctor: You're going to die from cancer. However, we have this cure that uses the HIV virus. It probably won't kill you.
Patient: Hmm, so you're telling me I'm going to die painfully from cancer, or I can take my chances with HIV with pretty damned good results. Let me think... Let me think... Nope, I think I'll take the cancer. Th
If I had to choose between HIV and carrots... (Score:5, Funny)
HIV vs Cancer (Score:5, Funny)
I can hear the doc now... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I can hear the doc now... (Score:3, Funny)
Amazing! (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not talking about the safety of recipients once this goes into the real-world (although that can be alarming), but about the research itself.
I'm pretty far removed from science in any practical setting, but what are the procedures for this kind of research? I've seen too many movies like 28 Days Later to not imagine some accident or oversight to cause some sort of mutant airborne HIV.
Also, does HIV even infect mice? I know there's a human/ape HIV and a feline HIV but I had not hear of mice HIV. Think of some sewer rat biting you...
That's just my mid-day alarmist self. Note I'm not against the research, just wondering about it...
Re:Amazing! (Score:3, Insightful)
28 Days Later had zombies. Is that what you are afraid of? Zombies?
You want scary? Take a look at the front section of any major newspaper and do some indepth research into its topic. Zombies are an entertaining distraction in comparision.
Huge health risk (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Amazing! (Score:3, Interesting)
Don't fear this, Fear Avian Bird Flu (Score:3, Interesting)
What you need to fear and what the general population doesn't understand is that chickens overseas are the perfect breeding ground for the next epidemic. At least one case exists where two people caught the flu bug from an infected person... who got it from a chicken.
Can you imagine what wouldve happend had that inital carrier been infected with, say, influenza? A nice, ripe virus that mutates every year and at the d
Re:Don't fear this, Fear Avian Bird Flu (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Amazing! (Score:4, Insightful)
HIV is already widely spread in human populations all over the world, mutating rapidly, and under strong selective pressure from antiviral drugs. If it could easily mutate into an airborne strain, it probably would already have done so. The likelihood that modifying it for therapeutic purposes would accidentally turn it into an airborne strain is probably about the same as the risk that kid down the street customizing his car will accidentally turn it into an attack helicopter.
Cheap Prescription Drugs (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Cheap Prescription Drugs (Score:5, Insightful)
I was just wondering if anyone has an educated guess how many medical and drug breakthroughs are happening in publicly funded institutions, the NIH being another example, and how many are actually developed inside the big drug and healthcare companies using private funding.
I ask because in the face of the extraordinarily high cost of drugs in the U.S., HIV drugs in particular, the usual retort by Republicans is drug companies need those huge profits to do groundbreaking R&D on new breakthrough drugs. Drug companies have the highest profits and profit margins of ANY major industrial sector in the U.S. or at least they did before they started getting hammered when it turned out drugs they were pushing like Zoloft and Vioxx are potentially dangerous.
I'm also curious how much of the privately funded drug company research is funded by the public through tax breaks, grants etc.
To put it another way how much do drug companies profit on breakthroughs from publicly funded research.
Another question what is the current ratio between drug company spending on advertising versus R&D. The never ending saturation TV ads, designed to compel American consumers to demand drugs from their doctors they may or may not need, must be costing billions and all those advertising costs which do no one any actual good are being tacked on to the cost of drugs and making seniors in particular pay through the nose for saturation advertising campaigns instead of drugs or drug R&D.
My three step plan to drive down the cost of drugs and healthcare:
A. Outlaw drug advertising just like ads for cigarettes and hard liquor. Its totally inappropriate and disceptive to advertise drugs using slick ads, like soda pop or underarm deodorant. Confine them to advertising to doctors and then only in the form of factual dissertations on the pros and cons of the drug, audited by a 3rd party for accuracy.
B. Mandate that drugs and publicly funded health breakthroughs be provided to the public at cost or with a regulated profit margin.
C. Rather than outlawing U.S. agencies, like Medicare, from negotiating fair prices for wholesale drug purchases, make it law that those agencies MUST negotiate fair wholesale prices, like Canada and most other sane nations do.
HIV and Carrots (Score:5, Funny)
Nothing new really (Score:5, Informative)
When pseudotyped with the right envelope, these virus can infect efficiently any type of cell. They can also transduce non-dividing cells, which is usefull. They lack almost every gene of HIV; they retain certain structures which allow packaging of the genome in the virus and the viral promoter, but that's about it. Viruses are packaged in special cell lines containing the viral components on plasmids most of the time, and preparations are tested for recombinants. Its the best technology out there, but its nothing new, really.
An old phrase comes to mind (Score:3, Insightful)
Amazing things can be done with retroviruses (Score:4, Informative)
On the other hand, HIV mutates very rapidly, so attempts to control the cure, say, by having it die off when there are no more defective genes to rewrite might well fail (as any viruses that mutate in a way to work around the die-off mechanism would reproduce rapidly).
Brilliance? (Score:5, Informative)
chemotherapy - is just poison. it works because the cancer cells absorb the poison much quicker than normal cells.
radiation therapy - again, radiation by itself is bad.
most over the counter acne treatments - are just some form or acid that kills the bacteria on the skin
As for reengineering a virus to take on something else, while facinating, its hardly a new idea. If you are interested in this sort of thing and haven't read Orson Scott Card's Xenocide [amazon.com] (part of the Ender Series), you might check it out.
oh dear (Score:3, Insightful)
So "scientists" is capitalized now?
I guess that's fair, but not everyone believes in science so it might upset some people.
Mis-titled article (Score:5, Informative)
The researchers programmed the altered virus package to attack a protein on the cancer cell surface called p-glycoprotein, which causes problems in cancer patients by shuttling cancer drugs away from the cell. In other words, p-glycoprotein causes resistance to cancer medication. Scientists could customize the system to target any protein on the surface of a cell, Chen said. He and his colleagues have seen success with about a dozen different molecules, including brain and other blood cells, he said.
Except for the last sentence, it makes it seem as though this is only a way to pave the way for more conventional treatments. The last sentence doesn't make sense to me, given the context. I can understand how the proteins on the surface of a cell could qualify as "molecules", but then the structure of the sentence makes it seem like they're calling brain and blood cells molecules:
He and his colleagues have seen success with about a dozen different molecules, including brain and other blood cells, he said.
I'm still waiting for a virus that attacks the actual cancer cells. I remember hearing something about it a while back, but then it seemed to die off. Anyone been following it?
ob. simpsons reference (Score:3, Funny)
Melanoma is cancer. It is NOT ALL cancer (Score:5, Informative)
Melanoma is a subset of the set of all cancers - specifically, it is a form of skin cancer - more specifically, it is a cancer formed from the skin cells that give skin its pigmentation.
Melanoma is NOT *all cancers* - thus even if this modified virus will kill 100% of all melanomas and have 0% harmful side-effects this does NOT make it a "cure for cancer" - merely a "cure for a type of cancer".
The will need to generalize this virus to attack ALL cancerous cells, and NOT to attack any other cells.
Now, if you can work out how a virus can tell the difference between a cancerous cell and a normal but rapidly reproducing cell, you have a Nobel prize awaiting.
Re:Melanoma is cancer. It is NOT ALL cancer (Score:5, Insightful)
I would much prefer being treated with a virus if I knew it had one function and did it well, rather than 100 different funtions that it may or may not do well.
good news! (Score:5, Funny)
Bad news, Bruno here is going to administer it.
old Russian idea (Score:5, Informative)
Due out next month (Score:4, Funny)
Melanoma is one of the most dangerous cancers (Score:5, Informative)
Unfortunately a fellow geek has a case. Check out his weblog here [yak.net].
Basically make sure you get all suspicious looking moles checked by your doctor before it's too late. Melanoma is only life threatening when it spreads beyond the initial site.
Another, safer virus also cures cancer (Score:5, Informative)
The human reovirus [oncolyticsbiotech.com] has shown dramatic promise in early oncolytic trials. Some great pictures can be seen here
The virus itself is non-pathogenic, lives in the bowels and lungs, and it's believed that most adult humans have been exposed to it during their lifetimes. Contrast this with HIV...
I've been watching this technology for a couple of years now it's slow going to get through clinical trials, but there's good evidence that reovirus may be able to treat 2/3 of all cancer out there [oncyedu.info], with little or no adverse side effects. Where it is not 100% effective, and radiation therapy is also prescribed, reovirus has been shown to be a good radiosensitizer.
Aside from reovirus, we're hearing more and more stories like this [oncolyticvirus.org] every year. I have a strong feeling that we'll have a cure for 90% of all cancer within the decade.
Jails now Healthier than Hospitals (Score:3, Funny)
"she swallowed the spider to catch the fly" (Score:4, Insightful)
This is a REALLY REALLY REALLY bad idea! (Score:3, Interesting)
The lizards are a godsend. (Score:5, Funny)
Lisa: But isn't that a bit short-sighted? What happens when we're
overrun by lizards?
Skinner: No problem. We simply release wave after wave of Chinese
needle snakes. They'll wipe out the lizards.
Lisa: But aren't the snakes even worse?
Skinner: Yes, but we're prepared for that. We've lined up a fabulous
type of gorilla that thrives on snake meat.
Lisa: But then we're stuck with gorillas!
Skinner: No, that's the beautiful part. When wintertime rolls around,
the gorillas simply freeze to death.
Re:battlefield (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:battlefield (Score:5, Funny)
Re:battlefield (Score:5, Funny)
Following that, security will start "screening" the blood so finely that the backlog of blood waiting to enter the heart causes our blood pressure to skyrocket, causing us to all die early of heart attacks.
But they'll tell us it's in our best interests, and we'll go along with it anyway.
Re:battlefield (Score:5, Funny)
I ask myself that same question everytime I eat out... the answer is yes... yes I do... taco-hell is just too good to pass up, and the other germs I picked up from KFC and the chinese food place down the street will battle it out...
Re:battlefield (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes. You better believe it.
After seeing my mother die from cancer I would give anything to make sure no one else would ever have to go through what me and my sister did.
In short, hell yeah. Bring it on.
Re:battlefield (Score:3, Funny)
-matthew
Re:battlefield (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:battlefield (Score:3, Informative)
Re:It will never see the light of market shelves . (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It will never see the light of market shelves . (Score:5, Informative)
Using a virus as a vector refers to inserting a payload into the viral sequence (the desired DNA or RNA), which then gets inserted into the cell's genetic sequence as the virus inserts itself.
So basically I think there's quite a confusion here. I mean, it sounds like we're using one enemy to fight another, but if we can figure out how to get HIV to fight cancer, this new HIV won't go out there and suddenly turn regular HIV into good HIV that kills cancer. In fact, I don't know if it's such a good idea to use one enemy to fight another besides the fact that it sounds ironic. I would've thought that HIV would be one of the worst candidates with its fast mutational rate and ability to attack T-cells making it extremely dangerous. Obviously though, there must be some properties of HIV that make it a good vector in this case.
Re:It will never see the light of market shelves . (Score:4, Informative)
This genes that cause immunosuppression in unmodified HIV have been removed in this case and replaced with something else that sepcifically targets the cancer cells themselves irrespective of your natural immune reponse.
When they prefect the "targeting" bit with cell receptor proteins, I'm wondering what the next step will be. Maybe have the vector modify the genes in the cancer cell to stop producing the homones that cause unrestricted tumor growth? Or perhaps hijack the cancer cell to produce something like the chemicals used in a chemotherapy regimin within your own body; perhaps in smaller, less toxic doses that naturally taper down as the cancer cell count abates? Who knows?
Re:It will never see the light of market shelves . (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:It will never see the light of market shelves . (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It will never see the light of market shelves . (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It will never see the light of market shelves . (Score:3, Funny)
Re:It will never see the light of market shelves . (Score:3, Funny)
Pregnancy, the only STD with a 100% mortality rate!
Re:It will never see the light of market shelves . (Score:3, Insightful)
As long as they arent foolish enough to market it as modified HIV.
Mutating HIV here, today :( (Score:4, Interesting)
Multi-drug-resistant HIV strain raises alarm [newscientist.com]
The coincidence that an engineered HIV against cancer comes around just when another HIV mutation appears on the wild... Where is my tinfoil hat?
Re:It will never see the light of market shelves . (Score:4, Interesting)
Hard to make HIV any more mutation-prone. (Score:5, Informative)
In the case of HIV, the virus is ALREADY extremely mutation-prone. If I remember correctly, the reverse transcriptase enzyme (the one that makes the initial-infection copy) averages more than one error per copy.
The virus compensates for this by having TWO copies of its genome - not so much for error correction as to have a significant chance of having a working version of each enzyme when it has infected a cell. (This also lets it form hybrids when two different versions infect the same cell.)
The result is that it actually evolves resistance to the antibodies the body throws at it during the course of the infection. And also that the infection is slow - but eventually overwhelms the immune system with a mob attack of divergent versions of the virus. A typical late-stage patient may have three or more viable variant populations, each capable of infecting other people.
If they ARE using pieces of the AIDS virus in their construct, I certainly hope one of the changes they made is replacing this error-prone enzyme with a more accurate one from another virus.
Re:Hard to make HIV any more mutation-prone. (Score:4, Informative)
Should have RTFAed. It sounds like they are using the transcriptase in question, errors and all, but left out the genes for the rest of the virus - assembling the surface from parts made elsewhere. So the thing doesn't have the mechansim to reproduce - just the mechanism to install the payload genes.
They do mutate a lot (Score:3, Interesting)
mutability of influenza [news-medical.net]
some propaganda but also speaks of HIV mutability. [marleyaids.org] I did not have time to search for more HIV article but google is your friend.
Re:It will never see the light of market shelves . (Score:5, Interesting)
As drugs and techniques prove themselves they move down the ladder until they're used to treat the general public.
Of course, patients are only give the option of highly experimental methods once the tried and true stuff has failed.
The only people exposed to this will be the ones who allready have a death sentence from their cancers.
Sometimes cancer forces people into rough decisions. A friend of mine chose to accecpt a bone marrow transplant from an HIV positive doner because it was her only chance to beat her leukemia.
She's doing fine now, but she's on AZT and all kinds of other antivirals now to stave off AIDS.
Re:It will never see the light of market shelves . (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, that may be true for the dozens of pharmaceutical companies that made polio-reducing drugs, but Lederle, the company which marketed the (oral) polio vaccine made KILLING by selling 3 or 4 doses to all 6 billion people on the planet!
Same thing for an HIV cure/vaccine. Dozens of companies would no longer have a source of income, but the ONE company that creates (and patents) the vaccine will guarentee to sell 50 billion units over the next 40 years (assuming, like most vaccines, that it takes a few doses and booster shots to achieve the desired effect).
Plus, as a medical student, I happen to know for a FACT that people in my school are working on HIV vaccines. "They" aren't preventing this type of research.
Re:In other news... (Score:5, Funny)
Beneficial effects of smoking (Score:5, Interesting)
-"Beneficial Effects of Nicotine" (Jarvik, British Journal of Addiction, 1991)
Not listed here is an obscure type of stroke that occurs with less frequency in smokers.
I started smoking out of sheer desperation with ulcerative colitis about ten years ago. The ulcerative colitis went away, but then I was left with a disgusting two pack per day habit for two years that probably did more damage to my health. I should have tried chewing that gross nicotine gum instead. (Crohn's disease OTOH has a high incidence among smokers so it isn't exactly a total win.)
The Simpsons were ahead of their time -- (Score:5, Funny)
Episode 238: The Mansion Family [tvtome.com]
Re:Would this spread? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Great news except for this small fact... (Score:3, Interesting)
Since it progresses faster (countable in months rather than years), it is more likely to eliminate its self, rather than stay silent and spread.
-nB
Re:Admiration for Scientists (Score:5, Insightful)
Working with HIV is actually a lot less dangerous than a lot of other infectious agents. HIV is fairly hard to contract, compared to airborne or contact-transmitted diseases. For example, it dies pretty quickly when exposed to plain old air. It's only HIV's incurability and eventual fatality that makes it so hazardous.
Memory tells me that nurses dealing with high-risk patients are prescribed AZT in order to prevent infection. Can anyone confirm my memory?
That seems pretty unlikely, because AZT is pretty damn toxic. You wouldn't want to take it just as a precaution. It is true that health care workers who've been exposed (e.g. needle prick from an HIV patient) go on a short-term drug cocktail intended to weaken the virus enough for their immune systems to handle it before it gains a foothold.
Re:Admiration for Scientists (Score:5, Informative)
That said, HIV isn't terribly dangerous to work with. Admittedly it's hella scary, but given that the bug isn't airborn and that we can ameliorate any infection with a huge dose of AZT those working with patients have little to fear.
Re:Admiration for Scientists (Score:3, Informative)
Contrast with everyone's favorite Level 4 pathogen Ebola Zaire. Ebola Zaire
Re:Is there any chance... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Check you facts (Score:5, Informative)
Generaly the virus used is the Herpes Simplex A virus due to the ease of genetic packaging.
That said, no virus can be engineered to just attack cancer cells. Cancer cells are identical to non-cancerous cells in nearly all respects. The difference isn't in what they "look like" but what they do. Cancer cells do not (generaly) preform the task that their non-cancerous counterparts preform and instead divide rapidly.
So the way you target cancer is targeting dividing cells. Since cancer cells divide more rapidly than non-cancerous cells they die off in higher numbers. Lather, rise, repeat. Eventualy you're out of cancer cells.
The problem is that radiation and chemo make the patient very sick, and the dehydration effects tend to leave them weakened and unable to continue treatment. Chemo and Radiation thus become a balance between killing the cancer and killing the patient.
A virus could be different because unlike the injestion of poison (Chemo) or exposure to Radiation, the body does not generaly react to viral infection with vomiting and other nasty side affects.
The result is that you can get more cancer killing power per unit of patient killing power. This in turn translates to a higher cure rate for cancers.
This is why stem cells are so interesting for curing cancers. Got a brain tumor? Great.... we'll zap the shit out of it and toss in some stem cells... in a few days you'll have regenerated the brain tissue and you'll be good as new. That's science fiction today, but it's well within the realm of possibility in a few years.
Re:"Ahhh that's how it always starts. Then later.. (Score:4, Interesting)
This is a big problem with adenovectors - even in the best cases, patients will get at least a little sick from them. There are next generation forms that are less toxic, but these are still in development.
The real advance here was that they were able to combine the minimal "cell killing" aspect of HIV with another virus, Sindbis, to create a gene therapy that is relatively benign. They then modified that to target this to specifically kill a certain type of tumor. Previous attempts at HIV-based gene therapies proved to be too toxic.
Of course this was all in mice, which don't get AIDS from HIV. Whether it would in people is another story.
Re:Nothing To See Here... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What would the evangelitcal Christans beleve. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:there was already a viral cure (Score:4, Informative)