Cure for all viruses?

Discussion on science and technology

Re: Cure for all viruses?

Postby Nathan Sanders » Thu Aug 11, 2011 7:43 pm

Damjan Pasarić wrote:Some people have allready said this is going to bring us a lot closer to the "star trek" society lol.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/1 ... 24435.html


If only it would lol. Threes going to be some serious upheaval as more and more technologies permanently alter society and the marketplace.

3D printers will be an everyday household object within the next 10 years, just think at the sort of disruption that it could cause to economies if people could not only pirate music and video, but basic household items like cutlery, plates, furniture, clothes and even eventually things like electronic equipment and cars, TV's, computers.
User avatar
Nathan Sanders
Admin
 
Posts: 305
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 9:55 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Cure for all viruses?

Postby nathrakh » Fri Aug 12, 2011 1:22 am

3D printers...as in printing solid objects? You guys are being funny right?
'Swing Serenade' is brought to you by Gorman's Ear Guards. GUARD YOUR EARS! - with Gorman's.
User avatar
nathrakh
Veteran
 
Posts: 46
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2011 9:47 am
Location: Long Beach, CA

Re: Cure for all viruses?

Postby nathrakh » Fri Aug 12, 2011 1:58 am

Damjan Pasarić wrote:
nathrakh wrote:3D printers...as in printing solid objects? You guys are being funny right?



lol no http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZboxMsSz5Aw


I'm speechless. This..is very important.
'Swing Serenade' is brought to you by Gorman's Ear Guards. GUARD YOUR EARS! - with Gorman's.
User avatar
nathrakh
Veteran
 
Posts: 46
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2011 9:47 am
Location: Long Beach, CA

Re: Cure for all viruses?

Postby Nathan Sanders » Fri Aug 12, 2011 9:03 am

nathrakh wrote:
I'm speechless. This..is very important.


Replicators here we come!

Image
User avatar
Nathan Sanders
Admin
 
Posts: 305
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 9:55 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Cure for all viruses?

Postby nathrakh » Fri Aug 12, 2011 11:48 am

Nathan Sanders wrote:and even eventually things like electronic equipment and cars, TV's, computers.

and organics... (eating a banana right now, dreaming about having two)
'Swing Serenade' is brought to you by Gorman's Ear Guards. GUARD YOUR EARS! - with Gorman's.
User avatar
nathrakh
Veteran
 
Posts: 46
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2011 9:47 am
Location: Long Beach, CA

Re: Cure for all viruses?

Postby tazardar » Fri Aug 12, 2011 3:51 pm

Actually, they are already working on printing human organs with a similar method of "Rapid Prototyping" 3D printers.
Afaik they already transplanted a working heart valve.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80DhBLEhdzk&feature=related
tazardar
New Member
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2011 3:46 pm

Re: Cure for all viruses?

Postby jytheitguy » Wed Aug 17, 2011 3:39 am

It's a fascinating technology with lots of applications. Another one would be for long space journeys. Make repair parts and tools as you need them. Then recycle them back into the mush.
Regards,

-Jim

Image
jytheitguy
Seasoned
 
Posts: 25
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2011 1:35 pm
Location: Madison, WI

Re: Cure for all viruses?

Postby 162 105 375 845 281 » Wed Aug 17, 2011 2:59 pm

This sounds like CCR5-Delta32 mutation-based gene therapy

IIRC - studying death rates of major plagues, and odd immunity cases for hiv/aids, both groups showed immunity above normal who had heterozygous delta-32 mutation parents, giving them pretty much viral immunity

Further, TOBACCO is potentially capable of mass producing huge amounts of antibiotics and modified T antibodies (not zombie).

It even transmits if smoked like normal tobacco too.


tl;dr

cure for all viruses is in our genes (CCR5-Delta32) if this is what I think its talking about ^_^
Why do I screw up my links? Because my posts have been deleted on various news and medical sites and because if I link it here and you click it here, it means you heard it through here but if you put it into your browser, the website gets a hit.
162 105 375 845 281
Veteran
 
Posts: 57
Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2011 2:03 pm
Location: USA

Re: Cure for all viruses?

Postby afdavis 3 » Wed Aug 17, 2011 10:32 pm

162 105 375 845 281 wrote:This sounds like CCR5-Delta32 mutation-based gene therapy

IIRC - studying death rates of major plagues, and odd immunity cases for hiv/aids, both groups showed immunity above normal who had heterozygous delta-32 mutation parents, giving them pretty much viral immunity

Further, TOBACCO is potentially capable of mass producing huge amounts of antibiotics and modified T antibodies (not zombie).

It even transmits if smoked like normal tobacco too.


tl;dr

cure for all viruses is in our genes (CCR5-Delta32) if this is what I think its talking about ^_^


The only problem with a one-fits-all cure, is that viruses mutate, rapidly. The viruses will just become immune to it after a very small amount of time. I'm sorry, but we can't build this perfect world of a one-fits-all cure.
Light a man a fire; He'll be warm for the rest of the day. Teach a man to light a fire; He'll be warm for the rest of his life.
afdavis 3
Seasoned
 
Posts: 35
Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2011 8:02 am
Location: Australia

Re: Cure for all viruses?

Postby 162 105 375 845 281 » Thu Aug 18, 2011 12:58 am

afdavis 3 wrote:
162 105 375 845 281 wrote:This sounds like CCR5-Delta32 mutation-based gene therapy

IIRC - studying death rates of major plagues, and odd immunity cases for hiv/aids, both groups showed immunity above normal who had heterozygous delta-32 mutation parents, giving them pretty much viral immunity

Further, TOBACCO is potentially capable of mass producing huge amounts of antibiotics and modified T antibodies (not zombie).

It even transmits if smoked like normal tobacco too.


tl;dr

cure for all viruses is in our genes (CCR5-Delta32) if this is what I think its talking about ^_^


The only problem with a one-fits-all cure, is that viruses mutate, rapidly. The viruses will just become immune to it after a very small amount of time. I'm sorry, but we can't build this perfect world of a one-fits-all cure.


(warning: refer to my above tl;dr if you don't like to read BECAUSE IMMA LEARN YOU SOME HEALTHCARE BELOW! HURRR YOU MIGHT HAVE TO READ A LOT AND LEARN IT COULD BE FUN THOUGH READING RAINBOOOOWWWWW)

this - SPOILER: THIS IS REALLY LONG BUT WILL MAKE YOU SMART OKAY.

Ah and why can't we? The science is solid, I'm no biotech engineer but the immunities for aids suggestions, and the data on CCR5-Delta32 (theres lots of info) is as solid as I've looked into it. It literally 'makes sense'. I was actually kind of mad when they 'released' the information that by taking a small amount of the HIV virus in pill form, a person could become immune... anyone who knows anything about infectious diseases and human microbiology would be pissed to hear that today as 'news' because its one of the first steps anybody should have taken. It is literally basic infectious disease principal that you either immunize by similar disease (cowpox & smallpox) or by using a small amount of disabled or weakend or dilute virus (entire argument that flu shots can get you sick is based on that fact which is also true).

We can produce the CCR5-Delta32 effect as an antibody. Its an actual gene a lot of people have that when heterozygous in both parents (would make it recessive to express), REALLY DOES give viral immunity - pretty much the opposite way the HIV/AIDS was thought to be invincible. This would keep the cells from infection and allow the immune system to attack the virus without being infected, even create antibodies if the infection or virus lasts (currently it does not but round 2 is looking like a win if treated and virus 'lives' to that stage). If you don't know about genetics and microbiology/infectious disease on a super minimal level (I'd say a year of college or so, I went to a decent private school and I hated it but I loved shit where I got to learn so maybe second year of microbiology stuff), let me explain to you gene therapy on this scale really does make sense. Heterozygous parents give birth to a child who is immune to HIV - and we find evidence in our viral plagues of history in northern europe, where we can trace the mutation back to. Essentially some of these viruses should have wiped out 8-9/10 people in some town or city environments, but ended up with only about 3/10 or otherwise far less than in other areas.

If DRACO works like this, it could be working to mimic the effects of CCR5-Delta32, which is I believe the basis of gene therapy. If it IS based off of CCR5-Delta32 I wouldn't be surprised, as the mutation when expressed does not allow entry for viruses into key cells it could also signal a contain & die signal (I am not sure about suicide as a gene therapy approach but I havent heard about any successfully infected cells so I would imagine they may have an extremely adverse reaction to already having the virus inside and going into a 'lock up' mode). I'm guessing this is the case because essentially, a cell that dies with the virus inside gets eaten by a phagocyte and some phagocytes should then become infected, especially with HIV/AIDS. However they do not mention that the virus survives cellular death, which normally it triggers itself and ends up back into the bloodstream in most cases. That leads me to believe that cellular death occurs but contains the virus in the same way the phagocyte may be incapable of accepting the virus when it consumes the dead cells. The virus never truely 'dies' in any of its forms, as a virus is not a living organism, it cannot die. It is best described as a poison of sorts, an infection of poison that actually programs cells to create more of it. In order to 'get over' a virus, the body typically has to produce antibodies which are designed to adhere to the virus, preventing it from entering cells and allowing it to be disposed of as a virus+antibody tar and feathering 'garbage' particle. Our bodies fight viruses naturally by bombarding them with specified-for-that-virus (and sometimes similar ones) antibodies, making the virus manageable and incapable of reproducing itself.

One way these can - and may be working together - is by comparing the effect to an antihistamine. Certain particles cause allergies and allergic responses. While the exact principal is kind of backwards in this example, an antihistamine stops the body's response to an allergy that says 'I'm allergic to this! GET IT OUT GET IT OUT' and the 'cure all virus drugs' would work by doing similar things, only instead of allergens it would be non-living infectious diseases aka viruses, which are not alive and actually do bear some resemblance if you think about it to an allergen. Simply way more insidious. Instead of preventing the body from responding by blocking histamine receptors, we are blocking virus-receptors OR bonding to the virus (like an antibody does) to prevent entry into cells.
With gene therapy we are using the non-allergic to derive a cure that cures the allergic. We are still following the rules keep in mind. In this sense, we have cured all allergies not normal to human beings - only we are doing it with viruses right now instead of allergens, make sense?

And failing that we need only get the antibodies from immune individuals and plug them into tobacco plants. Seriously. It works like that, and its worth researching and remembering how to chart heterozygous parents with recessive genes and what is required to express that gene in a child. Do some ratio math and start applying that to europe as the plague hit and subsequent viral diseases hit over time with less succession as the gene became more and more positive to survival in the same areas while annihilating others. Proper antibodies with controlled mutations are being reported to be able to take out at LEAST 1000 cancer cells per 1 modified antibody, it sounds ludicrious as well but if you think about it, the antibody is never alive and the cancer cell CAN be destroyed with antibodies and theres no reason they can't stay in the system over time and hit multiple cells each, especially if the body accepts them as natural antibodies.

It would make sense that the most likely cure-alls for viruses are in fact, in our own genes and via gene therapy methods. We already have a very good system for defeating external threats like the virus or bacteria, its ALMOST perfect, and in some people its better than others. I believe whats happening is we are taking that 'better than' and figuring out ways to give it to everyone else who isn't. Cures for cancer are by nature already pretty close to what our bodies do naturally - we have defenses we simply need to learn to target them or augment them to achieve results, we will probably still need external drugs sure but this is a whole field of possibilities rarely talked about. Our bodies deliver genetically programmed immune system responses on several levels and in several ways, we have the weapons to stave off all kinds of things living and not, and even multiple ways to do so. Some simply are able to trick our bodies better than others, and we're learning how to guide our bodies to do what they normally want to do.

The key to curing all viruses (except maybe one or two oddballs we have yet to find out) is perfecting our immune response, not even our immune system persay. The phagocytes should eat anything they can eat, thats their job they eat trash/debris/dead stuff/living and nonliving invaders. If they encounter a virus they produce antibodies tailored to the virus so that they adhere and disable. Your 'killer' viruses typically go unnoticed by the immune system, attack the immune system, or are simply too nasty and quick, or skip known treatment methods. 'Antibiotics' are by nature for living organisms, fungus > bacteria (this is like one of the oldest genocyde wars ever, fungus and bacteria do not like each other and produce poison to kill each other if they become neighbors on culture trays, hence penicillin). So the killer viruses CAN be stopped, we simply need to skip our bodies to 'antibody' mode where the 'uncurable' viruses prevent it. This is as simple as injecting antibodies manufactured elsewhere, though that approach is going to be expensive until we can get tobacco + the drug cleared for co-production or something on similar scale.
Last edited by 162 105 375 845 281 on Thu Aug 18, 2011 1:56 am, edited 1 time in total.
Why do I screw up my links? Because my posts have been deleted on various news and medical sites and because if I link it here and you click it here, it means you heard it through here but if you put it into your browser, the website gets a hit.
162 105 375 845 281
Veteran
 
Posts: 57
Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2011 2:03 pm
Location: USA

Re: Cure for all viruses?

Postby afdavis 3 » Thu Aug 18, 2011 1:44 am

162 105 375 845 281 wrote:
afdavis 3 wrote:
162 105 375 845 281 wrote:This sounds like CCR5-Delta32 mutation-based gene therapy

IIRC - studying death rates of major plagues, and odd immunity cases for hiv/aids, both groups showed immunity above normal who had heterozygous delta-32 mutation parents, giving them pretty much viral immunity

Further, TOBACCO is potentially capable of mass producing huge amounts of antibiotics and modified T antibodies (not zombie).

It even transmits if smoked like normal tobacco too.


tl;dr

cure for all viruses is in our genes (CCR5-Delta32) if this is what I think its talking about ^_^


The only problem with a one-fits-all cure, is that viruses mutate, rapidly. The viruses will just become immune to it after a very small amount of time. I'm sorry, but we can't build this perfect world of a one-fits-all cure.



Ah and why can't we? The science is solid, I'm no biotech engineer but the immunities for aids suggestions, and the data on CCR5-Delta32 (theres lots of info) is as solid as I've looked into it. It literally 'makes sense'. I was actually kind of mad when they 'released' the information that by taking a small amount of the HIV virus in pill form, a person could become immune... anyone who knows anything about infectious diseases and human microbiology would be pissed to hear that today as 'news' because its one of the first steps anybody should have taken. It is literally basic infectious disease principal that you either immunize by similar disease (cowpox & smallpox) or by using a small amount of disabled or weakend or dilute virus (entire argument that flu shots can get you sick is based on that fact which is also true).

We can produce the CCR5-Delta32 effect as an antibody. Its an actual gene a lot of people have that when heterozygous in both parents (would make it recessive to express), REALLY DOES give viral immunity - pretty much the opposite way the HIV/AIDS was thought to be invincible. This would keep the cells from infection and allow the immune system to attack the virus without being infected, even create antibodies if the infection or virus lasts (currently it does not but round 2 is looking like a win if treated and virus 'lives' to that stage). If you don't know about genetics and microbiology/infectious disease on a super minimal level (I'd say a year of college or so, I went to a decent private school and I hated it but I loved shit where I got to learn so maybe second year of microbiology stuff), let me assure you gene therapy on this scale really does make sense. Heterozygous parents give birth to a child who is immune to HIV - and we find evidence in our viral plagues of history in northern europe, where we can trace the mutation back to. Essentially some of these viruses should have wiped out 8-9/10 people in some town or city environments, but ended up with only about 3/10 or otherwise far less than in other areas.

If DRACO works like this, it could be working to mimic the effects of CCR5-Delta32, which is I believe the basis of gene therapy. If it IS based off of CCR5-Delta32 I wouldn't be surprised, as the mutation when expressed does not allow entry for viruses into key cells it could also signal a contain & die signal (I am not sure about suicide as a gene therapy approach but I havent heard about any successfully infected cells so I would imagine they may have an extremely adverse reaction to already having the virus inside and going into a 'lock up' mode). I'm guessing this is the case because essentially, a cell that dies with the virus inside gets eaten by a phagocyte and some phagocytes should then become infected, especially with HIV/AIDS. However they do not mention that the virus survives cellular death, which normally it triggers itself and ends up back into the bloodstream in most cases. That leads me to believe that cellular death occurs but contains the virus in the same way the phagocyte may be incapable of accepting the virus when it consumes the dead cells.

One way these can - and may be working together - is by comparing the effect to an antihistamine. Certain particles cause allergies and allergic responses. While the exact principal is kind of backwards in this example, an antihistamine stops the body's response to an allergy that says 'I'm allergic to this! GET IT OUT GET IT OUT' and the 'cure all virus drugs' would work by doing similar things, only instead of allergens it would be non-living infectious diseases aka viruses, which are not alive and actually do bear some resemblance if you think about it to an allergen. Simply way more insidious. Instead of preventing the body from responding by blocking histamine receptors, we are blocking virus-receptors OR bonding to the virus (like an antibody does) to prevent entry into cells.
With gene therapy we are using the non-allergic to derive a cure that cures the allergic. In this sense, we have cured all allergies not normal to human beings - only we are doing it with viruses right now instead of allergens, make sense?

And failing that we need only get the antibodies from immune individuals and plug them into tobacco plants. Seriously. It works like that, and its worth researching and remembering how to chart heterozygous parents with recessive genes and what is required to express that gene in a child. Do some ratio math and start applying that to europe as the plague hit and subsequent viral diseases hit over time with less succession as the gene became more and more positive to survival in the same areas while annihilating others.

It would make sense that the most likely cure-alls for viruses are in fact, in our own genes and via gene therapy methods. We already have a very good system for defeating external threats like the virus or bacteria, its ALMOST perfect, and in some people its better than others. I believe whats happening is we are taking that 'better than' and figuring out ways to give it to everyone else who isn't.


As you would know, it works for a while (and if it is good enough a fairly long time) but viruses mutate. This antigen is only going to last so long. From this, some strains of say HIV would actually survive the antigen because they are a different Mutation of HIV that can combat the antigen. Yes, the science is sound, this cure won't be the answer, but it is going to help us a lot. We aren't going to cure ALL HIV cases or any other virus, the viruses that survive will keep multiplying creating a new strain of viruses that are even harder for us to combat.
Light a man a fire; He'll be warm for the rest of the day. Teach a man to light a fire; He'll be warm for the rest of his life.
afdavis 3
Seasoned
 
Posts: 35
Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2011 8:02 am
Location: Australia

Re: Cure for all viruses?

Postby 162 105 375 845 281 » Thu Aug 18, 2011 2:55 am

It won't cure everything, but as we know it now, it stands to be able to for everything known and viral that directly attacks humans. By nature disease will mutate, and we will find exceptions, but these are very sound methods to defeating previously understood mutations that avoided treatment and cure. People will become sick, but by manipulating the response system we can actually give multiple layers of defense to an otherwise defenseless person. The virus also needs to be able to mutate into a form that would disable our natural response or severely hinder it to a lethal level, so its likely new threats would emerge from known threats, and the known threats are the ones we are now brandishing a cure for. Non threatening viruses must mutate to become threatening AND uncureable and by means we do not know of yet.

I hate to be counting chickens before they hatch, and sure there are going to be problems, the cure may not even work in this form and must be broken down into a whole new set of drugs and drug companies to rule our lives next generation, who knows. Simply put though this is a whole new set of approaches and methods we aren't familiar with considering, and in our lifetimes if not our immidiate futures, we are capable of using and learning from just one system how to

1) enable phagocytes to do their primary jobs by preventing viral entry into our immune system from the inside or outside (this is a cure by itself)

2) enable phagocytes to do their secondary jobs by preventing external viral entry into the immune system from the outside (this is a cure by itself)

3) severely hinder if not halt all progress by the virus by preventing external entry into multiple systems (this is a treatment method and a cure if the body is able to deal with the pacified virus) or signaling controlled cell-suicide

4) derive an immune-system response that can be replicated in plant cells or harvestable means (this literally is THE CURE our bodies design specifically for whatever virus we are under attack by, when we can reproduce these en masse we can then use step 4 - which is a cure by itself - at any time before or with step 1 or 2)

I'm pretty sold on it. :mrgreen:
Why do I screw up my links? Because my posts have been deleted on various news and medical sites and because if I link it here and you click it here, it means you heard it through here but if you put it into your browser, the website gets a hit.
162 105 375 845 281
Veteran
 
Posts: 57
Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2011 2:03 pm
Location: USA

Re: Cure for all viruses?

Postby afdavis 3 » Fri Aug 19, 2011 9:18 am

162 105 375 845 281 wrote:It won't cure everything, but as we know it now, it stands to be able to for everything known and viral that directly attacks humans. By nature disease will mutate, and we will find exceptions, but these are very sound methods to defeating previously understood mutations that avoided treatment and cure. People will become sick, but by manipulating the response system we can actually give multiple layers of defense to an otherwise defenseless person. The virus also needs to be able to mutate into a form that would disable our natural response or severely hinder it to a lethal level, so its likely new threats would emerge from known threats, and the known threats are the ones we are now brandishing a cure for. Non threatening viruses must mutate to become threatening AND uncureable and by means we do not know of yet.

I hate to be counting chickens before they hatch, and sure there are going to be problems, the cure may not even work in this form and must be broken down into a whole new set of drugs and drug companies to rule our lives next generation, who knows. Simply put though this is a whole new set of approaches and methods we aren't familiar with considering, and in our lifetimes if not our immidiate futures, we are capable of using and learning from just one system how to

1) enable phagocytes to do their primary jobs by preventing viral entry into our immune system from the inside or outside (this is a cure by itself)

2) enable phagocytes to do their secondary jobs by preventing external viral entry into the immune system from the outside (this is a cure by itself)

3) severely hinder if not halt all progress by the virus by preventing external entry into multiple systems (this is a treatment method and a cure if the body is able to deal with the pacified virus) or signaling controlled cell-suicide

4) derive an immune-system response that can be replicated in plant cells or harvestable means (this literally is THE CURE our bodies design specifically for whatever virus we are under attack by, when we can reproduce these en masse we can then use step 4 - which is a cure by itself - at any time before or with step 1 or 2)

I'm pretty sold on it. :mrgreen:


As much as I like the idea, I wouldn't go through the gene therapy. I just don't consider it to be me anymore. May sound stupid, but that is what I think.
Light a man a fire; He'll be warm for the rest of the day. Teach a man to light a fire; He'll be warm for the rest of his life.
afdavis 3
Seasoned
 
Posts: 35
Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2011 8:02 am
Location: Australia

Re: Cure for all viruses?

Postby 162 105 375 845 281 » Fri Aug 26, 2011 3:08 pm

Its creepy isn't it ^^'?

I am wondering though, if we can explore this hypothesis that several plants are capable of selecting bad genes that should be expressed and overwriting them... that would be an apex of gene therapy.
Why do I screw up my links? Because my posts have been deleted on various news and medical sites and because if I link it here and you click it here, it means you heard it through here but if you put it into your browser, the website gets a hit.
162 105 375 845 281
Veteran
 
Posts: 57
Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2011 2:03 pm
Location: USA


Return to Science and Technology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


cron