Breakthrough Portends Cure For the Common Cold 180
breadboy21 writes with this excerpt from the Independent:
"Scientists have been able to show for the first time that the body's immune defenses can destroy the common cold virus after it has actually invaded the inner sanctum of a human cell, a feat that was believed until now to be impossible. The discovery opens the door to the development of a new class of antiviral drugs that work by enhancing this natural virus-killing machinery of the cell. Scientists believe the first clinical trials of new drugs based on the findings could begin within two to five years."
Stunning Research by Dr. Strangelove (Score:5, Funny)
But studies at the Medical Research Council's laboratory have found that the antibodies produced by the immune system, which recognise and attack invading viruses, actually ride piggyback into the inside of a cell with the invading virus.
Yes but these 'Slim Pickens' antibodies are often regarded as clinically insane by the others that watch in confusion as the suicidal antibody hoots and hollers, waiving its antibody cowboy hat around as the virus blasts them both into the cell.
Cold calling (Score:2)
This is just marketing to upgrade my free common cold to uncommon colds. Then fees for gold level colds and platinum level colds.
Article seems to be marketing baloney (Score:2)
Perhaps there is some research going on there but a description of it was not found in the article. The article makes no sense. It calls antibodies "war machines". Antibodies just bind proteins. They don't even destroy proteins though often they bind them in ways that inhibits their action until they can be degraded by other proteins. If an anti-body is binding to the coat protein of a virus then it is possible that it can inhibit the viral penetration of the cell. But once the virus dumps it's payloa
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The article makes no sense. It calls antibodies "war machines". Antibodies just bind proteins
But you see, "war" is such a successful human activity, solving all kinds of problems that couldn't be solved any other way far more easily and at less human cost than any other method, that it is now used as a metaphor for any enterprise that people expect to be easily successful.
Thus, the "War on Poverty"--which eliminated poverty--and the "War on Drugs"--which eliminated recreational drug use--and the "War on Terror"--which eliminated terrorism.
As you can see, "war" is such a great metaphor for wildly su
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Breathless-hyperbole dept. (Score:2)
The protein is TRIM21, hitherto known only to readers of Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRIM21 [wikipedia.org]
If it can bring an antibody into the cell that's very interesting, even if they've only demonstrated it in cell culture. Let me know when they try it on a mouse.
Contrary to the article, I always thought that there are other mechanisms that can kill viruses inside the cell, particularly siRNAs could also kill viruses http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_interfering_RNA [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
don't worry. in real life, we have both will smith and bruce willis to save humanity. unless chuck norris gets angry with them being more famous or something.
Two to five YEARS??? (Score:5, Funny)
My cold will be over by then.
Re: (Score:2)
Given they are in Cambridge, England, they are probably less concerned about FDA approval.
Can't say I know how long approval in the UK will take either, and I agree that if anything does come of this it will be at the long end of their estimate at the soonest.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Can't say I know how long approval in the UK will take either, and I agree that if anything does come of this it will be at the long end of their estimate at the soonest.
at the soonest:
lab prototype design and lead modification (now) - 2-5yrs
clinical trials - +5yrs
regulatory approval and marketing - +2yrs
and given at any stage the project could just break down with delays.. hope you'll be holding onto that cold for a while
Re:Two to five YEARS??? (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, I'll be out exercising. [bbc.co.uk]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Does anyone know whether these procedure are optimised to reduce the number of casualties or to reduce the number of potential lawsuits.
In other words, is the main problem legal/political rather than technical ?
Re: (Score:2)
Does anyone know whether these procedure are optimised to reduce the number of casualties or to reduce the number of potential lawsuits.
Reducing the number of casualties is reducing the number of potential lawsuits. It also happens to be quite ethical and sensible.
Seriously though, I think the only people who will be wanting to push cures for the common cold are our employers. I can deal with a slight runny nose every so often. Besides, as Albanach points out above - and my own experience confirms - you get less frequent/severe colds when you have an active lifestyle and feel healthy.
Re: (Score:2)
you get less frequent/severe colds when you have an active lifestyle and feel healthy.
Remember this is /. -- that won't be a significant factor here.
Re: (Score:2)
Reducing the number of casualties is reducing the number of potential lawsuits. It also happens to be quite ethical and sensible.
Sure, but reducing the number of lawsuits does not reduce the number of casualties. Depending on what the core objective is, some delays may be useless (or even detrimental) to saving lives. If you have a cure to a disease that kills 1000 people a year but that your cure will maybe cause 10 death per year due to side effects, you can save 1000 lives that would not die because of you but would cause more or less directly 10 deaths that you become legally responsible of.
I think some of the procedures are m
Re:Two to five YEARS??? (Score:4, Informative)
Plain stats give you an idea of the number of healthy volunteers you need at this stage, and the time it's going to take to statistically prove that the results you've got are conclusive before going to the next level.
Between each phase there'll be long review, ethics boards, etc. Bear in mind that for every successful drug there are going to be hundreds or thousands of candidate drugs which didn't make it.
In short, you can criticise the FDA for some things, but they serve a vital purpose which is ensuring to as high a level as possible that the drugs that are approved are both safe and effective.
The fact that a drug has passed FDA approval does not shield the Pharma company that made it from any liability - this is a common misconception that is categorically not true.
In terms of the common cold, I'd kind of agree with you but I'd also say that once the mechanism for defeating the cold is understood it'll almost certainly give us the ability to treat a lot of more critical illnesses than we currently can - there's no reason not to research into it, anyway.
All pharma companies are trying like mad to shorten the 8-12 year process of taking a drug to market - they'd be mad if they didn't just from a commercial point of view - the length it takes is indicative of effort required.
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that a drug has passed FDA approval does not shield the Pharma company that made it from any liability - this is a common misconception that is categorically not true.
Ok thanks, that was what I was looking for...
Re: (Score:2)
...you get less frequent/severe colds when you have an active lifestyle and feel healthy.
So... lots of parties and sex with lots of anonymous partners?
Sweet!
Oh, wait, this is Slashdot.
Re: (Score:2)
No, I meant more getting outside and going for a walk or doing sports. I know this is Slashdot, but I've seen plenty of posters who have a life outside of their computer. I'm online constantly at work, and often at home, but I do enjoy other activities too.
Re: (Score:2)
Probably a little of both. realistically I think that a "staggered" system of testing and approval would make a lot of sense. Rate patients on a 1-5 scale of:
1) You gonna die: The disease you is invariably fatal, or has reached a phase where the chance of stopping it is remote at best. If these people want to make themselves human experimental subjects on the off chance something works, let them. Nothing is likely to make matters worse at any rate. Drugs for diseases in this category require the leas
Re: (Score:2)
It seems like a great idea in principle, but it has a slightly weird consequence. It's now much easier to run a trial on late-stage, te
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Does anyone know whether these procedure are optimised to reduce the number of casualties or to reduce the number of potential lawsuits.
What makes you think the procedures are optimized? They are ad-hoc collections of things thought up by people given bat-shit insane direction from various political organizations with subtle and not so subtle pressures from the drug companies and various 'interested' parties.
It's a giant clusterfuck, just like everything else.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is fantastic news! (Score:5, Insightful)
I look forward to seeing how this annoyance will evolve into a serious threat
Re:This is fantastic news! (Score:5, Interesting)
This isn't like antibiotics though. This is a naturally occurring chemical that your body produces. The human body has been fighting colds for ages and they haven't evolved into a serious threat, nor will it. It's key to survival is the fact that it doesn't kill you. That way it can spread and infect more people, thus insuring its survival. However, that said, what effects throwing in an excess of antibodies that your body would normally produce does to the immune response over time is another question entirely. Could the body come to assume there was a magical load of antibodies going to come on its own (the drug) and decide not to waste the resources to make any of its own anymore? That's more my worry. (sort of like how a certain type of diabetes is induced rather than genetic)
Re: (Score:2)
The think is that it is produced in response to the presence of a virus.
What happens to a cell that sees TRIM21 when not infected? I suspect bad things, there's a reason that mechanism isn't always active.
Re: (Score:2)
From what I can tell the mechanism pretty much IS always active. The trim21 is already in the cell but only sees the antibodies once the virus has invaded the cell though, and the cylinders only digest when the trim21 is bound to the antigens. (as far as I can tell from the article at least, I am a biochemist but I haven't researched this effect further on my own.)
Re: (Score:2)
There are over 200 viruses under the "cold" category.
That's irrelevant if a drug of this type could improve your body's ability to ward off any virus in the category. None of them are going to cure you in a finger-snap. I wonder however how many flu symptoms are the effect of your body's defenses, and whether any of them will be worsened by such a drug.
Re:This is fantastic news! (Score:5, Interesting)
I wonder however how many flu symptoms are the effect of your body's defenses, and whether any of them will be worsened by such a drug
The cytokine storm that causes fatalities with some influenza variants is due (roughly speaking) to the body breaking down the virus too quickly, swamping its ability to dispose of the byproducts. This looks like it would cause your body to break down the virus faster, which could be problematic.
Re: (Score:2)
The cytokine storm that causes fatalities with some influenza variants is due (roughly speaking) to the body breaking down the virus too quickly, swamping its ability to dispose of the byproducts
On the other hand, there are of course viruses where this is not the case. HIV, or herpes for example. I'm guessing ebola as well. Furthermore, the byproducts produced sound like that's a more general problem that could be solved seperately: you could take this drug to kill all the viruses, and then another drug to help you deal with the debris potentially (though I have no idea if such a drug is out there).
More tools are always better, of course.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:This is fantastic news! (Score:4, Interesting)
"In any immunology textbook you will read that once a virus makes it into a cell, that is game over because the cell is now infected. At that point there is nothing the immune response can do other than kill that cell," said Leo James, who led the research team.
But they showed a mechanism by which the body's cells can destroy the virus before the cell becomes controlled by the virus but after the virus has entered the cell. This is quite unprecedented as it allows that cell to recover, and therefore reduces the need for the immune system to have to launch attacks on our own cells, as occurs in a normal immune response and becomes uncontrolled in a cytokine storm.
In other words, this looks promising!
Re:This is fantastic news! (Score:5, Funny)
None of them are going to cure you in a finger-snap.
"The average cold lasts seven days, but if you take this drug it will be over in a week"
Re: (Score:2)
Personally, my average cold is about 1-3 days. Wife gets cold, I don't care and I drink from same cups/etc. I get sniffles next day, followed by dry throat. By the evening of the next day, my nose is stuffed. Wake up the next day and I feel good as new.
Similar thing with the Flu. Entire family gets flu. About 2 days after everyone else gets it, I finally get it. I feel like crap for 1-2 days, then I start clearing up. Usually fewer than 5 days to get over the flu. rest of my family takes about 1-2 weeks.
Whe
Re: (Score:2)
Personally, my average cold is about 1-3 days. Wife gets cold, I don't care and I drink from same cups/etc. I get sniffles next day, followed by dry throat. By the evening of the next day, my nose is stuffed. Wake up the next day and I feel good as new.
Similar thing with the Flu. Entire family gets flu. About 2 days after everyone else gets it, I finally get it. I feel like crap for 1-2 days, then I start clearing up. Usually fewer than 5 days to get over the flu. rest of my family takes about 1-2 weeks.
When I get sick on my own, I stay away from everyone else because I assume I got something bad. When someone else gets sick, I don't care. I figure the extra anti-bodies is good for me.
I've only missed school twice in my life to being sick. Once was chicken pox, the other time I accidentally swallowed a bit of mouthwash. Man that stuff does a number on your stomach.
That's OK, you're immune system is so cranked that you're going to spiral into some horrible, crippling autoimmune arthritis and you will be wheelchair bound by the time you're 50.
But keep on gloating, sonny, let's just see who will get the last laugh. You're never getting out of here alive.
Re:This is fantastic news! (Score:4, Funny)
Don't hold your breath expecting a quick, simple and over the counter cure.
Holding your breath is a quick, simple cure, as long as you can do it long enough.
Re: (Score:2)
It's impossible. You'll start breathing again once you pass out. You could use artificial means to prevent that perhaps, but you wouldn't really be "holding your breath" at that point.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if someone can "walk" with an artificial leg...
Re:This is fantastic news! (Score:5, Funny)
Shh! If I can convince enough stupid people this actually works I could make the world a better place.
Re: (Score:2)
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
You have used that phrase at least once. I don't think it means what you think it means.
Re: (Score:2)
*Do not actually try this, almost certainly by the time the virus gets back to you it will have mutated to the point where your body is no longer immune
Drawback to curing the common cold (Score:4, Funny)
We reduce the number of ways we can defend against Martian war machines.
2 - 5 years (Score:3, Funny)
Flash game (Score:3, Interesting)
while reading the article i couldn't help thinking that the immune system would make a cool Flash game.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
My lady is always after me to make a game like that (as if I were a programmer) because of the benefits of visualization vis-a-vis healing. I remember there was a shooter game like that for Apple 2... Plasmania? Yes, that's it. I bet you can get it from the Newton Apple archive and play it in emulation if you care :)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
http://www.kongregate.com/games/CellCraft/cellcraft [kongregate.com]
NO! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:NO! (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's possible that there is a good reason why that mechanism is not already more powerful.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's possible that there is a good reason why that mechanism is not already more powerful.
This is completely blind speculation. It's also possible, using similar blind speculation, that this pathway is the virus panacea we've been waiting for, and that it will ultimately prove to be the death of all human-susceptible viruses ever. Take THAT, HIV!
Re:NO! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:NO! (Score:5, Insightful)
Nice rant. No, actually, completely irrelevant rant. This research shows how your body breaks down viruses and provides a potential means of stimulating this response. If anything, it makes it harder for viruses to adapt, because they're faced with exactly the same defence mechanism as without this boost, it's just more powerful so they are destroyed faster and have less time to adapt.
You tried to label a comment as "completely irrelevant" but still you demonstrate you fail to understand the basic aspects pertaining to evolution. The thing is, "making it harder to adapt" does not, nor it can ever mean "making it impossible to adapt". They will adapt. It will only take a single virus to survive a stimulated response for it to replicate and propagate. With all the other unadapted virus out of the picture, the replicas of the adapted virus will in essence have an entire ecosystem at their disposal, where they will freely propagate, infect and replicate. Your poor understanding of this subject is what lead incompetent health officials and irresponsible patients to contribute to the development of the so called superbugs [wikipedia.org], which are no laughing matter.
But hey, keep spewing uneducated drivel and accuse those who demonstrate a better understanding of the subject as making "completely irrelevant rants". Meanwhile nature does work in spite of your lack of understanding.
Re:NO! (Score:4, Interesting)
Nice rant. No, actually, completely irrelevant rant. This research shows how your body breaks down viruses and provides a potential means of stimulating this response. If anything, it makes it harder for viruses to adapt, because they're faced with exactly the same defence mechanism as without this boost, it's just more powerful so they are destroyed faster and have less time to adapt.
You tried to label a comment as "completely irrelevant" but still you demonstrate you fail to understand the basic aspects pertaining to evolution. The thing is, "making it harder to adapt" does not, nor it can ever mean "making it impossible to adapt". They will adapt. It will only take a single virus to survive a stimulated response for it to replicate and propagate. With all the other unadapted virus out of the picture, the replicas of the adapted virus will in essence have an entire ecosystem at their disposal, where they will freely propagate, infect and replicate. Your poor understanding of this subject is what lead incompetent health officials and irresponsible patients to contribute to the development of the so called superbugs [wikipedia.org], which are no laughing matter.
But hey, keep spewing uneducated drivel and accuse those who demonstrate a better understanding of the subject as making "completely irrelevant rants". Meanwhile nature does work in spite of your lack of understanding.
Actually, in this case, the person you're replying to is right. If the stimulated response is causing your body to use the exact same method of attack against the viruses, but just cause it to act faster, than it is lowering the chance for the virus to adapt. After all, the ones who are susceptible to the immune system response are already being killed by this response, and are getting a greater number of generations in which to develop a mutation that might make them more resistant to it. If you can make the immune system kill them faster using the same method, then yes, they could still adapt, but now you're giving them less time to do it. Assuming it's even possible for them to develop a mutation that can stop it, which is not necessarily a given.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, in this case, the person you're replying to is right. If the stimulated response is causing your body to use the exact same method of attack against the viruses, but just cause it to act faster, than it is lowering the chance for the virus to adapt. After all, the ones who are susceptible to the immune system response are already being killed by this response, and are getting a greater number of generations in which to develop a mutation that might make them more resistant to it. If you can make the immune system kill them faster using the same method, then yes, they could still adapt, but now you're giving them less time to do it. Assuming it's even possible for them to develop a mutation that can stop it, which is not necessarily a given.
That's the point which people who at least grasp the subject, such as the OP, repeatedly make while others are systematically missing. Putting out a stronger immune system response does not nor it can ever mean that pathogens will be unable to adapt. They can adapt and, as it has been shown time and again, they will adapt. Trying to make believe that the pathogen's ability to adapt is somehow thrown out of the window if the immune system is helped to throw a stronger response is both showing ignorance an
You are arguing from different assumptions... (Score:2)
I think people are arguing from two different set of assumptions. Either:
i) The virus can mutate to avoid this mechanism but it has not done so. For example the mechanism may be ineffecient or at the level expressed by the host is not detrimental as to prevent successful replicative lifecycle. Perhaps mutation will lower the viruses 'fitness' in other domains.
ii) The virus cannot mutate to avoid this mechanism (unlikely, but possible if it's in a key regulatory pathway or adaptor molecule for cell entry). I
Re: (Score:2)
And that's why we've had epidemics of super-powered vaccine resistant smallpox, polio, and whooping cough sweep through and destroy huge populations.........or not.
Re: (Score:2)
You fail to understand that, for example, when an outbreak of smallpox occurs the patients are placed in quarantine, which has nothing to do with the effectiveness of a treatment and/or vaccination campaign. Moreover, although they receive medical treatment, the fatality rate of those outbreaks is considerably high. That method also works and is employed to contain diseases which there are no known cures, including other media darlings such as ebola.
So, not only your example does nothing to contradict wha
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
A pathogen is like a person, put a mild poison in their water supply and they will build an immunity, inject a 30ml vial of ricin into their aorta and they will die in seconds. Flooding a person's body with almost enough vancomycin to kill them is going to kill pretty much anything else inside of them. But give the same person a single dose of oxacillin and it will just kill off the weakest and least res
Re:NO! - apparently against preventative medicine (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And, as much of a pain in the butt as it is, we don't let ourselves "be sick". Sometimes letting the body fight off a cold, or small virus is better than trying to beat it. It helps our immune system "buck up" and keep us healthy the next time a little invader hits us.
Then:
I see it daily...people walk in, do their business, and walk out. H*ll, didn't your momma tell you to wash up after you do your business?
Given your theory that more exposure to minor pathogens let's your immune system exercise and get buff, shouldn't you *not* wash your hands? I mean, you're not likely to get HIV from touching your own willy. The worst you're likely to find down there is some minor stomach bug. Seems to me, given the rest of your rant, that we should just calk this one up to "more exposure to minor pathogens" and call it a day.
Re: (Score:2)
The other thing that just gets me ticked is people NOT WASHING THEIR HANDS when they use the restroom. I see it daily...people walk in, do their business, and walk out. H*ll, didn't your momma tell you to wash up after you do your business?
From a selfish POV, it's sometimes better for you if you don't wash your hands assuming you can manage to not touch anything else in the washroom on your way in and out- e.g. door knobs/handles, taps, etc. Because, assuming you're somewhat healthy, your body can cope with whatever it has already. So if you don't touch anything else and keep your hands reasonably dry (e.g. momma taught you to not pee on your hands ), nothing changes much and so stuff is likely to stay AOK for you (someone else might not be a
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sometimes letting the body fight off a cold, or small virus is better than trying to beat it. It helps our immune system "buck up" and keep us healthy the next time a little invader hits us. The other thing that just gets me ticked is people NOT WASHING THEIR HANDS when they use the restroom.
To paraphrase:
Its a good for the immune system to get some exposure to disease.
Wash your hands to make sure you don't get exposed to disease.
Both points might be valid, but it strikes me that they don't really belong ri
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The other thing that just gets me ticked is people NOT WASHING THEIR HANDS when they use the restroom.
When's the last time you got cholera? Tapeworm? The sorts of infections which are transmitted via contact with fecal matter are a different set of things than what we're talking about here. The cold virus inhabits the upper respiratory tract, not your ass.
In fact, when's the last time you caught ANYTHING and your immediate thought was "Dammit, I caught this damn thing from someone's ass!"
I'm all for handw
Totally wrong (Score:4, Funny)
No, no, no, no, no. This is just silly.
I have seen several Star Trek episodes where they emphatically pointed out that they had never found a cure for the common cold. So how could there be one in the mere 21st century? Idiots.
Transporters that can reverse the aging process? Sure. (Though somehow they repeatedly forget this and continue to die of old age.) A cure for most every disease except the common cold? Sure! But a cure for the common cold itself? Impossible!
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
ah, but there was a Next Gen episode where Data was practicing sneezing (to more emulate humans) and Wes asks him if he has a cold. Data responds "a cold what?", and Wes says something to the effect that it's a disease people used to get.
Why oh why do I remember this?
Re: (Score:2)
There must be a high concentration of gamma rays in your parents' basement that gives you superhuman powers. Either that or you're a cyborg sent back in time from the future. Obviously one of those options is just ridiculous...
completely wrong way to think about colds (Score:5, Interesting)
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/05/opinion/05ackerman.html [nytimes.com]
i just read this last month
the common cold is an immune system overreaction. the virus does not cause the cold, our own bodies overreact to the cold, and that causes ALL symptoms. which explains why cold medicines work: they modulate the immune response, they don't actually fight the virus
so the virus comes in, borrows some cellular machinery for a few days, makes a few copies, and then leaves. our body's response is to call out the entirety of the navy, the marines, the army, the air force, the cavalry, mortar batteries, drone predators, and tactical nuclear strikes. for a crime which amounts to a homeless guy squatting in an unused home for a day or two
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:completely wrong way to think about colds (Score:4, Insightful)
All the steroids are doing is suppressing your immune system. This is not a cure you are simply treating the symptoms and depending on how severe the infection is, may be the worst possible thing you can do.
You might want to notice or respond to your GP, which argued fairly clearly that the only things worth treating in a cold are the symptoms.
Re: (Score:2)
Ummm, go read the GP.
You're not actually infected. A cold doesn't do any actual damage to the body. The body just massively over-reacts, which are your symptoms. Thus, the steroids treat the reaction to a non-infection. Thus it is a cure - the reaction is the only thing to treat, so suppress the reaction.
Re: (Score:2)
But steroids don't just suppress the immune response to the cold. They just generally suppress the immune system. Thus you may cure your cold symptoms at the price of allowing an infection that otherwise would been stopped cold to progress.
Re: (Score:2)
And how is that different from ANY anti bacterial/anti viral medication used now? Especially broad spectrum treatments.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
for a crime which amounts to a homeless guy squatting in an unused home for a day or two
You don't understand - his cell membrane is a different COLOR. They're TERRORISTS.
Re: (Score:2)
much of antiterrorism activity is an overreaction yes
but antiterrorism is not racism
you can't defeat the abuses you see in your world by completely misidentifying what they actually are
Re: (Score:2)
Ironic (Score:4, Funny)
wash your hands well with hot water & do it of (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Misleading in Title and Content (Score:3, Informative)
Medical researchers should be required to keep their yap shut until they produce something that works in humans. For decades I've read thousands (probably tens of thousands) of science articles that promised medical cures. Yet in that time only a handful were produced. Medical science today is little more than a money machine for researchers. I doubt that the investment is worthwhile.
Where's a cure for cancer, for diabetes, for heart disease? Nowhere to be found in the USA.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They're not promising a cure for the common cold and they are only speaking of the possibility of some future antiviral drugs.
Medical researchers should be required to keep their yap shut until they produce something that works in humans. For decades I've read thousands (probably tens of thousands) of science articles that promised medical cures. Yet in that time only a handful were produced. Medical science today is little more than a money machine for researchers. I doubt that the investment is worthwhile.
Where's a cure for cancer, for diabetes, for heart disease? Nowhere to be found in the USA.
Since anyone doing research gets grants and career advancements through publishing papers, and since science is advanced purely by people reading other people's results, replicating them, and then going further with those results, what you're advocating is getting rid of science.
Perhaps instead you should stop reading things that make you mad, and let science get on with gradually solving the world's problems.
How about other viruses? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Will this help in the effectiveness of antivirals for things like herpes, hepatitis and aids?
Possibly. The main reason herpes and HIV are so nasty is because the virus behaves in a fundamentally different manner than it does in colds, influenza, and even hepatitis. Most viruses get into a cell and replicate madly until the cell bursts, and then the millions of viral particles produced go out and infect adjacent cells, and so forth. That's called the lytic cycle. A few viruses -- herpes, HIV, a handful of others -- have a different cycle called a lysogenic cycle, in which they get inside a cell
D20 (Score:3, Funny)
Virus rollls self for initiative.
Great. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Better have another look at your biology textbook.
The common cold is so hard to eradicate precisely because it mutates (evolves) all the time. Each cold you get is another variant, some from the hundreds that have been around a long time, others that appear via mutation.
http://www.worsleyschool.net/science/files/virus/page.html [worsleyschool.net] ...and more...
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,311854,00.html [foxnews.com]
http://www.scienceclarified.com/Ti-Vi/Virus.html [scienceclarified.com]
Original paper? (Score:3, Insightful)
Or is this being reported before the paper has been published? Do we know that it has even been properly reviewed?
This is really cool if it's true and it's relevant to my research, so I'd love to see the original paper.
Re: (Score:2)
Try vitamin D and eating whole foods... (Score:2)
Vitamin D is needed by the immune system: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/7379094/Vitamin-D-triggers-and-arms-the-immune-system.html [telegraph.co.uk]
http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/treatment.shtml [vitamindcouncil.org]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--NqqB2nhBE [youtube.com]
And whole foods (especially vegetables, fruits, and legumes) help you have a disease resistant body:
http://www.diseaseproof.com/archives/diet-myths-the-food-pyramid-of-the-insane.html [diseaseproof.com]
http://www.seriouseats.com/2007/11/the-subsidized-food-pyramid.html [seriouseats.com]
http://www.youtube.com/watch? [youtube.com]
Um, yeah (Score:2)
Badly written (Score:3)
What a load of crap. Cells have a plenty of methods to fight virus infections. For example viral RNA silencing or interferon alpha/beta response. Moreover, killing of the infected cells is also a viable immune strategy.
So it is not a game over... In addition, where is the link to the original publication? (article or it didn't happen!)
Draft-n medicine? (Score:2)
Suppose some chinese clinic TODAY starts using these pre-trial findings to implement a new cough medicine, and floods the world with cheap prices for what might be poisonus snake oil...
Unlike IT's draft-n business, I am rather willing to hold this extremely long 2-5 year TRIAL + marketting and initial delivery times, but am sure some early implementation will claim to be as good as the finished n product. Matter of fact, if any "draft-n" medicine doesn't kill people, it will be hard to kill even after the t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
You have to admit, though, it did cure the cold.