New Wonder Drug Kills Almost Any Virus

[jVictor]

I see lots of jokes regarding this going bad. From a serious scientific perspective, it could go bad and kill lots of people. I would need to know more about how it seeks out the infected cells to be sure but: Cellular mutation is a fascinating and a complete mystery really. There is no specific gene that does something with a very rare exception (as what's found in the case of Sickle Cell Anemia, and a total of only 2% of all diseases known to have a genetic component). That being said, I would like to know exactly how the identifier works, and what prevents it from seeking out non infected cells. I mean, it is supposedly good against "any" virus. A group genetic mutation could all of the suddenly make it seek out and destroy healthy cells as well. Though, on the genetic landscape, this is very unlikely. A greater likelyhood is that it would adapt to whatever protocol they come up with and would be left at square one. Though, if they used this only on common and usually non lethal viruses only, and they viruses adapted, then we would just have more Flu (for example) that is resistant to this. I don't get the Flu, my immune system is completely top notch, and this would probably not affect me at all. We all get Ebola though, haha.

On the other side, I certainly didn't go to MIT. I am just a huge Biology nerd... thinking of pursuing an even higher education in the field Epigenetics. So, this is fascinating.

I don't think DRACO will adapt on its own. It's a protein therapy, so unless it decides to go prion (think Mad Cow Disease) there shouldn't be any danger of it attacking healthy cells (in theory anyway). The only real threat comes from the viruses themselves. The very nature of natural selection is that when a selective pressure is applied (in this case DRACO), the survivors who can whether it get to repopulate, so all we're left with is a bunch of DRACO-immune viruses and we get to start all over. It's not a bad idea, as a lot of the viruses we commonly deal with use RNA as they're genetic material, but not all viruses use it. Viruses are a very diverse group of pathogens with double and single stranded DNA as well as RNA. I wouldn't go calling this a cure-all just yet.

 

[Angus565]

How long till it goes evil and causes zombies!
DAM YOU SCIENCE!!!!!!!1111110ne

(If anyone takes that seriously I will puch them in the jaw)
(via text)

Don't be silly! With a name like DRACO It's more likely to be Vampires.

 

[funguy2121]

I was about to ask, "So it's a retro-retro virus?" Very nice. Hooray for medicine!

 

[Isalan]

Science could use some good press.

So, yay science!

 

[Kargathia]

I must say it sounds wonderful - until you factor in that this is before clinical testing. Time will tell whether this ever gets turned into actual medicine.

And yes, the first thing I thought of was "hmmm, this sounds like curing cancer by putting a bullet between your eyes"

 

[ultimateownage]

Uh, it won't cure the common cold.

Mistake me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the human body already do a similar thing? The symptoms of the cold are mostly due to the effects your body's defences have on you. Like a sore throat from the defences attacking the throat cells.

 

[newwiseman]

Call me cynical, but I can see two extreme problems with this.

1. Why would drug compaines ever let this happen? There's no money in curing diseases, they found that out with polio. The money is in treatment.

2. Even if it is released, how long until super-resistant viruses start springing up?

1. Curing a disease just means distributing the cure, maybe setting up a few temporary clinics. Treating it over the longer term requires a much larger overhead cost- setting up permanent clinics, keeping full-time employees to treat it, continuously producing the cure. Treating costs way more for the company than curing in the short term, and the comparative profits over the long term are negligible.

2. It doesn't matter what the virus is. The drug will still destroy it, simply by virtue of the fact that it's a virus. All viruses need to reproduce, and this drug prevents them from doing that at a fundamental level.

1. The constant income from treatment is far more than the cost. Pharma is still a largely unreglated industry, and they make shit-tons of money from every drug that treats symptoms rather than curing a disease. If they were to cure something as ubiquitous as the common cold, they lose money and job for all those people that made stuff to treat cold symptoms. And the one-time gains from distributing a cure only last so long.

2. Unless a virus comes up with a new way to infect a cell that does not trigger this DRACO. Then they're back at square one because that virus will thrive and create tons of different strains.

Dr. Salk didn't patent the polio vaccine because he didn't want to make money SAVING LIVES, if it works as described it won't be permanent you'll need regular doses every time your infected.

 

[frago roc]

Too bad HIV is classified as ssRNA, try harder science! =|

 

[frago roc]

Uh, it won't cure the common cold.

Mistake me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the human body already do a similar thing? The symptoms of the cold are mostly due to the effects your body's defences have on you. Like a sore throat from the defences attacking the throat cells.

But eliminating the source of the body's response quicker will stop the symptoms quicker.

 

[VGC USpartan VS]

How long till it goes evil and causes zombies!
DAM YOU SCIENCE!!!!!!!1111110ne

(If anyone takes that seriously I will puch them in the jaw)
(via text)

Remindes me of I Am Legend...

Did I just spoil the movie for you, well guess what, they tell you that at the BEGINNING of the movie!

But anyways, this definately looks intresting.

 

[HentMas]

"September 28th Daylight:
The monsters have overtaken the city, somehow i´m still Alive..."

 

[Marik2]

Wait but isnt it like that one thing where super viruses are being born because theyre adapting to the anti biotics?

Like isnt it going to be a matter of time when old viruses become more stronger in order to outgrow the miracle vaccine?

 

[Avaholic03]

Dr. Salk didn't patent the polio vaccine because he didn't want to make money SAVING LIVES.

Yeah, like I said, drug companies learned that lesson. They won't make that "mistake" again. Nobody in a position of power is that charitable anymore.

 

[Grahav]

This just in:

"Virus mutation is resistant to Draco"

Scientists: "Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu-"

 

[viranimus]

Between this, and the prospect of curing certain cancers with a benign form of HIV how could one NOT draw comparisons to the birth of the Zombie apocalypse?

 

[Catalyst6]

Not sure how this works on "any virus", while dsRNA is very common it's certainly not the only kind of virus. Not at all.

 

[xXAsherahXx]

This is going to sound really evil, but we need these viruses to kill of the excess population. We're already crowding the planet, disease and calamities help control the population so that we don't reach the carrying capacity, and if that happens, we're doomed.

Maybe we should focus on developing a colony on Mars or the Moon before we cure everything. I'm all for curing cancer and AIDS, but some diseases need to be left alone for the aforementioned reason.

 

[martin's a madman]

Haha, sounds almost as if they're saying 'We'll kill you so the virus can't spread!'

I know that's not the idea, but it seems like it.

 

[Hal10k]

Call me cynical, but I can see two extreme problems with this.

1. Why would drug compaines ever let this happen? There's no money in curing diseases, they found that out with polio. The money is in treatment.

2. Even if it is released, how long until super-resistant viruses start springing up?

1. Curing a disease just means distributing the cure, maybe setting up a few temporary clinics. Treating it over the longer term requires a much larger overhead cost- setting up permanent clinics, keeping full-time employees to treat it, continuously producing the cure. Treating costs way more for the company than curing in the short term, and the comparative profits over the long term are negligible.

2. It doesn't matter what the virus is. The drug will still destroy it, simply by virtue of the fact that it's a virus. All viruses need to reproduce, and this drug prevents them from doing that at a fundamental level.

1. The constant income from treatment is far more than the cost. Pharma is still a largely unreglated industry, and they make shit-tons of money from every drug that treats symptoms rather than curing a disease. If they were to cure something as ubiquitous as the common cold, they lose money and job for all those people that made stuff to treat cold symptoms. And the one-time gains from distributing a cure only last so long.

2. Unless a virus comes up with a new way to infect a cell that does not trigger this DRACO. Then they're back at square one because that virus will thrive and create tons of different strains.

1. Counter-argument:

http://distributedrepublic.net/archives/2008/02/01/cure-more-profitable-treatment

2. The trigger for DRACO seems to be pretty fundamental to being a virus. If it doesn't trigger it, then it isn't a virus, period. Even on the off chance that a non-virus virus did come about, the odds of it being a deadly super-virus are still equal to the odds of one developing under current circumstances.

 

[Palindromemordnilap_v1legacy]

Intriguing. Hard to see how viruses could adapt and evolve around this like they can most other defences given that it doesn't target them and prevents them working at a fundamental level. Hard to evolve against being starved