Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

New Drug Could Cure Nearly Any Viral Infection

samzenpus posted about 3 years ago | from the universal-cure dept.

Biotech 414

HardYakka writes "A team of researchers at MIT's Lincoln Laboratory have designed a drug that can identify cells that have been infected by any type of virus, then kill those cells to terminate the infection. The researchers tested their drug against 15 viruses, and found it was effective against all of them — including rhinoviruses that cause the common cold, H1N1 influenza, a stomach virus, a polio virus, dengue fever and several other types of hemorrhagic fever."

cancel ×

414 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

It's called Kalocin. (4, Funny)

dtmos (447842) | about 3 years ago | (#37048368)

1969 called. They want their drug [wikipedia.org] back.

Re:It's called Kalocin. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37048392)

Brought to you by Phicorp just in time for Miracle Day.

Re:It's called Kalocin. (1)

webmistressrachel (903577) | about 3 years ago | (#37048424)

Wow, if that's true, we have to think long and hard about why it's been suppressed (if it has). Maybe it's not the wonder drug it could have been, and was abandoned for lack of effectiveness.

Either that, or we're right about Big Pharm. A drug like this doesn't seem to be in their interests at all.

Re:It's called Kalocin. (1)

immakiku (777365) | about 3 years ago | (#37048478)

Did you even read that? That's wiki's list of fictional medicines.

Re:It's called Kalocin. (0)

dtmos (447842) | about 3 years ago | (#37048530)

Whooosh!

aak, sorry -- wrong parent. (1)

dtmos (447842) | about 3 years ago | (#37048740)

Mea culpa.

Re:It's called Kalocin. (2)

MBCook (132727) | about 3 years ago | (#37048674)

That doesn't mean that there can't be bad reprocussions to over-use of a real drug that can cure a large number of illnesses, assuming the drug works out in trials. How useful is Penicillin these days? How much worse is MRSA compared to the weaker infections that people used to get? Fiction could end up being sadly prophetic, if we're not careful.

Re:It's called Kalocin. (1)

immakiku (777365) | about 3 years ago | (#37048970)

What does this have to do with what I wrote? I'm pointing out that the parent to my post is assuming something based on his faulty understanding of history. Yes fiction strangely predicts reality in certain cases, but that's a different topic altogether.

Re:It's called Kalocin. (5, Insightful)

HungryHobo (1314109) | about 3 years ago | (#37049014)

How useful is Penicillin these days?

still fairly useful.Not as useful as it used to be but still good.

How much worse is MRSA compared to the weaker infections that people used to get?

no worse. it's just that we've become so accustomed to antibiotics working insanely well that when a handful of bugs become resistant they seem far scarier than their ancestors despite being no more deadly.

It's hard to comprehend how deadly bacterial infections were before Penicillin. Getting just a taste of it in the form of MRSA only seems scarier relative to how thing have been since penicillin.

Re:It's called Kalocin. (1)

idontgno (624372) | about 3 years ago | (#37049046)

Damn. I was hoping I could get some of those sweet, sweet mentats [wikia.com] .

Re:It's called Kalocin. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37048516)

I have thought neither long nor hard about this, nevertheless I think it has more to do with being from the book The Andromeda Strain than any nefarious plot.

Re:It's called Kalocin. (2, Interesting)

cayenne8 (626475) | about 3 years ago | (#37048662)

The hell with all of this.

Just come up with a cure for AIDS...so we can all get laid again without worrying or feeling guilty about screwing without a fuckin' rubber.....

Geez, the day they cure AIDS, I'm predicting the divorce rate will skyrocket with a ton of guys going "Later Bitch"....and not having to worry about dying if they get laid by someone different.

Oh well....sure would be nice to go back to the days before AID's..when you really didn't worry as long as she was on the pill, and anything you caught for the most part...could be cured with a quick shot.

Re:It's called Kalocin. (1)

spazdor (902907) | about 3 years ago | (#37048836)

Wow, did this post ever reveal a lot about you.

Re:It's called Kalocin. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37048850)

I'd be more worried about Herpes, as you can get that protection or not.

Re:It's called Kalocin. (1)

Aryden (1872756) | about 3 years ago | (#37048868)

Cause pregnancy, and other non-viral issues aren't ever a problem....

Re:It's called Kalocin. (1)

cayenne8 (626475) | about 3 years ago | (#37049062)

Cause pregnancy, and other non-viral issues aren't ever a problem....

You must have missed the part where she was on the pill.

Re:It's called Kalocin. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37048548)

WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH!!!!

I'd say that flew by at about 25,000 feet.

Re:It's called Kalocin. (1)

webmistressrachel (903577) | about 3 years ago | (#37048598)

Yes, yes, on this occasion I admit it, it did. I didn't even read the linked Wiki, I just assumed he was being truthful. It's a serious subject, I tend to take discussions on serious subject too seriously. Thanks for letting me know, I missed out a good joke.

Re:It's called Kalocin. (3, Interesting)

MBCook (132727) | about 3 years ago | (#37048628)

That would actually be my worry. Enough people already take drugs when they have the slight discomfort or to cure their flu (despite anti-bacterials having no effect on the flu). What's going to happen when they can take a drug for all that stuff? At the rate we use drugs, it seems like this one would be burned out and ineffective pretty fast unless the government really restricts it (more the Cipro or other other drugs that are left).

The idea of bugs that become resistant to all this stuff, or a drug that people can't stop taking because of horrible side effects... that sounds like great news. Can we please be careful not to invent/breed ourselves into a pseduo-Descolada [wikipedia.org] ?

Re:It's called Kalocin. (2)

webmistressrachel (903577) | about 3 years ago | (#37048632)

Well played, good sir. I missed that completely and posted a stupid naive response, accompanied by a loud woosh sound as it went over my head...

HIV? (5, Insightful)

webmistressrachel (903577) | about 3 years ago | (#37048376)

Any news on HIV / AIDS? Strange that that isn't the first virus threw into the petri dish with this stuff, to be honest.

Re:HIV? (1)

YodasEvilTwin (2014446) | about 3 years ago | (#37048414)

This. If it works as well as it says it could be a major breakthrough.

Re:HIV? (1)

geekoid (135745) | about 3 years ago | (#37049080)

If it only works on the 15 drugs it would be a major break through... what is seem like it can do, it's a fucking game changer.

Re:HIV? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37048490)

By chance (or design if you're into conspiracy), HIV is next to the perfect viral infection. Should it ever become airborne, it would perfection. I don't think there will ever be a cure for HIV. The human genome will have to change with evolution to stay ahead of the curve of these types of viruses.

Re:HIV? (1, Funny)

Lanteran (1883836) | about 3 years ago | (#37048794)

That's stupid. A percentage of the population is naturally immune to HIV. A vaccine is a matter of genetic engineering, that's all.

Re:HIV? (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about 3 years ago | (#37048952)

Oh, merely genetic engineering. That's all, is it? Well, that should be pretty simple.

I think it's less likely we'll come up with across the board, cancer-free genetic engineering on people who are past conception, than it is we'll come up with a treatment for HIV once you get it.

As an aside, I don't think genetic engineering immunity to HIV would be correctly called a "vaccine." If you're not training the immune system to recognize the infection and fight it itself, that's not a vaccine (though I could be wrong.) Immunization may be accurate.

Re:HIV? (1)

Paltin (983254) | about 3 years ago | (#37049016)

We... already have a treatment for HIV after you get it. The cocktails are now such that HIV has very little effect on life expectancy.

Re:HIV? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37048572)

But if it kills all the infected cells, that would kill the immune system which is the essentially same effect as AIDS.

Re:HIV? (1)

X0563511 (793323) | about 3 years ago | (#37048826)

Not all of your cells would be infected. By that point you're already on your death bed...

Re:HIV? (3, Insightful)

Daniel_Staal (609844) | about 3 years ago | (#37048832)

So you take the person into a clean room, administer the drug, wait a few weeks for their immune system to grow back (possibly from transplant or stem cell therapy), and they walk out cured. Not a bad deal.

Re:HIV? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37048592)

Won't work. the new miracle drug is active only versus double stranded RNA virii. HIV is a single-stranded virus.

Re:HIV? (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37048976)

TFA: "We have demonstrated that DRACOs are effective against viruses with DNA, dsRNA, positive-sense ssRNA, and negative-sense ssRNA genomes; enveloped and non-enveloped viruses; viruses that replicate in the cytoplasm and viruses that replicate in the nucleus; human, bat, and rodent viruses; and viruses that use a variety of cellular receptors"

Re:HIV? (1)

NNUfergs (1794256) | about 3 years ago | (#37048596)

ADIS is not a virus, it is an immune disease caused by HIV which is a retrovirus, not a type mentioned in the study.

Re:HIV? (1)

ThunderBird89 (1293256) | about 3 years ago | (#37048638)

I'm not an immunologist/molecular biologist, but if this drug works by targeting the infected cells to eliminate the infection, then by the time an HIV-infection is apparent, you might as well target the whole human, and there are already several drugs that do that very effectively. Potassium Cyanide comes to mind, for one...

Re:HIV? (2)

Actually, I do RTFA (1058596) | about 3 years ago | (#37048724)

Any news on HIV / AIDS? Strange that that isn't the first virus threw into the petri dish with this stuff, to be honest.

You're thinking like a scientist. Think like a business man. You cure the common cold first. That gets you 9 million units of fame, some nice early revenues from cold cures, and a ginormous grant to test if it can cure HIV as well.

Well, in reality, HIV is a single-stranded retrovirus, and not a double-stranded virus. Although, if this works, it will mitigate some of the negative effects of AIDS, in that it does not appear to rely on the body's immune system.

In Before Zombie Plague (1)

hbean (144582) | about 3 years ago | (#37048402)

Just sayin...it thinks all your braincells are viruses and turns you into a ZOMBIE.

Re:In Before Zombie Plague (1)

X0563511 (793323) | about 3 years ago | (#37048848)

Buzzkill: no, it would just kill your ass or turn you into a vegetable

What's a virus? (4, Interesting)

lymond01 (314120) | about 3 years ago | (#37048412)

So does a false positive mean you're dead?

Drug: Must find viruses. Oh, there's one...I think. And that one too. Oooh, actually, they're ALL viruses!

Re:What's a virus? (1)

michelcolman (1208008) | about 3 years ago | (#37048506)

Yes, I was wondering that too. Our cells carry loads of genetic material picked up pretty much everywhere. They just go "hey look, some code, I wonder what will happen if I execute it". We just call it a virus if it makes us sick (or rather, sick enough to notice). So what if this medicine attacks something that has already infected all of the cells in our body without us noticing?

Re:What's a virus? (1)

DemonGenius (2247652) | about 3 years ago | (#37048666)

IIRC, certain viruses leave their signature on blank sections of our DNA. Here [sciencedaily.com] is something I looked up mid-comment. Given this, I have all confidence that this drug may someday backfire with disastrous results and, therefore, I hope this is priced so high that only the extremely wealthy can afford it >:)

Re:What's a virus? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37048766)

DNA storage - that's neat. Did you RTFA and notice it looks for RNA, not DNA? I presume (TFA was pretty short) the RNA in question would only be present in cells currently suffering viral infection, not ones with prior infection.

Re:What's a virus? (1)

mhajicek (1582795) | about 3 years ago | (#37048908)

You do realize that RNA is made based on the code in the DNA, right?

Re:What's a virus? (1)

btk1137 (1984836) | about 3 years ago | (#37048806)

After RTFA, I checked dsRNA, wiki claims its pretty much specific to some RNA viruses http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA [wikipedia.org] If my cells are trying to make this from some ancient virus, I'll bet my immune system wouldn't be happy about it anyways. There may be other dangers involved, however. They probably would adjust the dose s.t. it wouldn't cause too much damage (hopefully anything like this would come out in the clinical trials.

Re:What's a virus? (1)

btk1137 (1984836) | about 3 years ago | (#37048830)

and by RTFA i mean abstract :)

Re:What's a virus? (1)

beelsebob (529313) | about 3 years ago | (#37048892)

No, we call it a virus if it injects code into a cell that didn't have that code before. Viruses don't have to make us sick - just be a bit of genetic code that inserts itself into ours. Hence why computer viruses are so named –they're bits of code that inject themselves into the processes of a system.

Re:What's a virus? (1)

vlm (69642) | about 3 years ago | (#37048980)

Our cells carry loads of genetic material picked up pretty much everywhere. They just go "hey look, some code, I wonder what will happen if I execute it".

There are now at least two valid interpretations of "Humans are DNA based windows users"

Re:What's a virus? (1)

overshoot (39700) | about 3 years ago | (#37049040)

Our cells carry loads of genetic material picked up pretty much everywhere.

They're called Endogenous Retroviruses [scienceblogs.com] .

Abbie is never gonna forgive me.

Re:What's a virus? (2)

kylemonger (686302) | about 3 years ago | (#37048536)

Maybe. But since only an idiot would take the drug unless they knew they were already infected with something bad, I'd say the risk is acceptable.

Re:What's a virus? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37048568)

RTFA before posting. "The first process involves dsRNA detection in the interferon pathway. Most viruses have double- or single-stranded RNA (ssRNA) genomes and produce long dsRNA helices during transcription and replication; the remainder of viruses have DNA genomes and typically produce long dsRNA via symmetrical transcription [4]–[5]. In contrast, uninfected mammalian cells generally do not produce long dsRNA (greater than ~21–23 base pairs) [4]–[5]. Natural cellular defenses exploit this difference in order to detect and to attempt to counter viral infections."

Re:What's a virus? (3, Interesting)

gcnaddict (841664) | about 3 years ago | (#37048776)

I'd be more concerned if it treats cells infected with a latent virus in the fashion described here, to be honest.

For instance, lets assume Alzheimer's is caused (as suspected) by a combination of a defective APoE gene and an HSV1 infection. So if the vast majority of brain cells are infected but the brain is (more or less) still highly functional... wouldn't this theoretically kill every one of those brain cells, essentially advancing alzheimer's itself many-fold in a matter of weeks?

Re:What's a virus? (1)

X0563511 (793323) | about 3 years ago | (#37048882)

It sounds like it only kills cells where the virus is actually replicating

Re:What's a virus? (1)

bberens (965711) | about 3 years ago | (#37048968)

Yes, and/or it would theoretically stop the progression of the alzheimer's if you get it early enough in the process.

Re:What's a virus? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37048942)

Possibly. So maybe you wouldn't want to take this to get rid of your cold. But if a virus was going to kill you anyway, it could be worth the risk.

Re:What's a virus? (1)

SecurityTheatre (2427858) | about 3 years ago | (#37048944)

The virus marker in question is the production of long, double-strand RNA. This is not something that ever happens in a healthy cell, and I don't think it happens in cells that contain dormant virus material (such as herpes), which I believe are stored as DNA fragments during their dormant period.

It's a very interesting discovery.

I am Legend? (0)

halfEvilTech (1171369) | about 3 years ago | (#37048416)

I am waiting for the news about the drug all of the sudden having the nasty side effect of turning all the people it helped into zombies.

We are all doomed

Re:I am Legend? (1)

rubycodez (864176) | about 3 years ago | (#37048486)

good news about that latent zombification side-effect, it has been confirmed the vaccine turns people into an immortal zombie! we're saved!

Re:I am Legend? (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about 3 years ago | (#37048552)

The only nasty side effect that might take place is a huge leap in the evolution of viruses. The stuff that does survive will be some extremely nasty sci-fi shit, including, I wouldn't be surprised, viruses that "hold the body hostage" by infecting critical cells and the biological equivalent of polymorphic viruses.

Re:I am Legend? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37048758)

viruses that "hold the body hostage" by infecting critical cells and the biological equivalent of polymorphic viruses.

Dude, I think you just described HIV.

Re:I am Legend? (1)

Daniel_Staal (609844) | about 3 years ago | (#37048896)

Both of those already exist. HIV in particular does both.

Re:I am Legend? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37049050)

link to more info? You caught my interest :)

Re:I am Legend? (1)

SecurityTheatre (2427858) | about 3 years ago | (#37049006)

Yeah, that sounds a lot like HIV.

But to be fair, this drug will only handle certain types of viruses (specifically long double-stranded RNA viruses). Fortunately, many of the nasty ones are of this type.

Re:I am Legend? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37048814)

They are not zombies, tho, they are vampires.

too good to be allowed? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37048446)

If this drug turned out to be as amazing as the slashdot summary makes it sound, it would be such a threat to the established Big Pharmaceutical Industry that the only question would be "how many days until it was totally suppressed"?

Re:too good to be allowed? (0)

halfEvilTech (1171369) | about 3 years ago | (#37048554)

This is what I would be afraid of in the event it did pan out. After all we can't create anything that would affect Random Large Megacorp's large and insane profit margins.

There was an article I read a few days back where alot of the blame on the patent reform bill losing its bite was due to large tech companies and pharmacutical companies fighting over damage claims for patent infringment. Big Pharma only has to patent 1 thing, the chemical for the drug. Where as the average smart phone could have as many as 250,000 patents applied to the one device.

The big tech companies want smaller fines due to the large number of patents and the contant legal battles from patent trolls etc. The pharmacutical companies however want to protect its hefty profits from their own patent litigation.

But I could easily see congress or someone declare it "unsafe" or hold it up in FDA proceeding indefinately for the simple reason of protecting the public interest aka their re-election campaign contributions from big pharma.

Re:too good to be allowed? (2)

ShavedOrangutan (1930630) | about 3 years ago | (#37048728)

I'm sure one of the utopian countries with socialized medicine will make it work first, since nothing good can come from capitalism.

Wow, just wow. (1)

Hazee Daze (998624) | about 3 years ago | (#37048454)

This kind of story is one of the reasons that I love Slashdot so much. What a fantastic breakthrough (if it pans out).

Re: Wow, just wow. (3, Informative)

dtmos (447842) | about 3 years ago | (#37048618)

If Slashdot impresses you, try EurekAlert [eurekalert.org] .

Re: Wow, just wow. (1)

JonySuede (1908576) | about 3 years ago | (#37048872)

thank you, I love slahdot for comment likes yours

Re: Wow, just wow. (1)

Lije Baley (88936) | about 3 years ago | (#37048922)

So you like having your expectations jacked way up, and then replaced with utter disappointment?

Not sufficent (1, Insightful)

bigsexyjoe (581721) | about 3 years ago | (#37048468)

For a drug that cures any virus to work, it has to work in a manner that keeps the profits up for big pharma and the medical industry in general. If it doesn't do that, you can't have it.

Re:Not sufficent (2)

Chemisor (97276) | about 3 years ago | (#37048630)

Don't worry. DRACO is patented until 2029.

Re:Not sufficent (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37049012)

Don't worry. DRACO is patented until 4029.

Fixed that for you.

Cure AIDS and all STDs at once? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37048470)

Can you imagine the scale of the orgy?

Re:Cure AIDS and all STDs at once? (1)

Sectoid_Dev (232963) | about 3 years ago | (#37048586)

I think it would be only fair, since I was too young to participate in all of the free sex of the 70s

Re:Cure AIDS and all STDs at once? (2)

hawkeyeMI (412577) | about 3 years ago | (#37048856)

There are plenty of bacterial STDs.

We are doomed then (1)

omfglearntoplay (1163771) | about 3 years ago | (#37048500)

Because doctors will prescribe it like the plague, then everything will be immune to it in a matter of a decade. Great. Stop having kids now.

Re:We are doomed then (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37048998)

Because not having kids will improve the outlook for the human race?? I'd like to talk with your biology professor....

The important question is: (2)

rongage (237813) | about 3 years ago | (#37048532)

What exactly does this do to the host organism (us) that is carrying these infected (and sub sequentially killed off) cells?

Since I don't speak micro-biologist, I'm not sure that was even addressed or answered in the article.
 

Re:The important question is: (2)

afidel (530433) | about 3 years ago | (#37048688)

Almost all cells that are infected will be destroyed anyways once the virus takes it over and uses it as a replication factory so it should be a net win if it is administered before the virus has really had a chance to take off.

Re:The important question is: (1)

X0563511 (793323) | about 3 years ago | (#37048946)

You'll get really sick as all the dead cells and/or pathogens release toxic nastiness all at once, and provided you survive that you'll get better.

I forget what this is called, but it's actually a problem when killing off a large infection with antibiotics or such.

Re:The important question is: (1)

SecurityTheatre (2427858) | about 3 years ago | (#37049036)

Once a cell is virus infected with this type of virus, it is already dead. If you can kill it before it replicates a bunch more virus material, you stand a much better chance.

Side effects (1)

immakiku (777365) | about 3 years ago | (#37048542)

With the existence of auto-immune disorders as a warning sign, I can see that this will have lots and lots of trouble getting approval.

Todd Rider (3, Interesting)

Scareduck (177470) | about 3 years ago | (#37048566)

Also the man who has so far explained why inertial-confinement fusion can't work [fusor.net] . Maybe.

I knew he was involved in medical research, but this is pretty awesome.

Time (1)

xclr8r (658786) | about 3 years ago | (#37048602)

to call in sick and use up my sick days.

Tested on 15 Viruses ... (1, Insightful)

angel'o'sphere (80593) | about 3 years ago | (#37048646)

While there are a few 10k virus forms known and the total number of "variations" goes into the dozens of millions?

Sounds like a plan for disaster and not like a cure.

Re:Tested on 15 Viruses ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37049010)

let's hope this "cure" will not replicate itself, shall we ?

Yes, but does it run Linux? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37048680)

Scratch that, does it run Windows?

Better watch out... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37048694)

I mean, isn't this how the zombie apocalypse is supposed to start?

Too good to be true? (1)

SecurityTheatre (2427858) | about 3 years ago | (#37048778)

This is one of those instances where I must assume that there is something that I am missing.

If not, it is one of the biggest medical findings in history... Period.

It's the "other half" to the discovery of penicillin.

read the original paper (1)

dizzy8578 (106660) | about 3 years ago | (#37048828)

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0022572 [plosone.org]

There are no conclusions but there are patent apps everywhere in the name of the main author Todd H Rider who is no slouch as a researcher.
If it proves out it could lead to social upheaval if Sci-fi proportions far beyond cheesy movie fearmongering :)

Re:read the original paper (1)

MagikSlinger (259969) | about 3 years ago | (#37048966)

Penicillin was as revolutionary, but the social upheaval doesn't seem to have been that great even though its impact was enormous.

Re:read the original paper (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37048996)

If it proves out it could lead to social upheaval if Sci-fi proportions far beyond cheesy movie fearmongering :)

That is indeed correct. A Miracle Cure. And we're already almost 7,000,000,000 strong.

What a great day...they cured cancer too!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37048852)

Well....only an N of 3, but still...this is an amazing day for science vs diseases...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44090512/ns/health-cancer/

AIDS??? (2)

Grimmreaper74 (1014291) | about 3 years ago | (#37048912)

What about the AIDS virus?

what.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37048932)

the fuck. Why is this story collapsed on the home page? What's up with this?

Is this legit? Either take it off completely or make the entire homepage point to this article. One way or another this is completely ridiculous.

Sounds Fishy (1)

glorybe (946151) | about 3 years ago | (#37048934)

Could a person survive if all cells containing a virus were killed off suddenly? Could a very small dose kill off some of the diseases while not overlaoding the person with dead cells? And how about that big elephant in the room, HIV - AIDS? If true some cancers might be eliminated as well. This is the kind of thing that strikes me as overly stated. It may be good news but there is a limit as to the way things tend to develop.

Side effects ? (1)

Alain Williams (2972) | about 3 years ago | (#37049002)

Given that some 8% of the human genome is from retroviruses [wikipedia.org] , some of which may be expressed in some way, perhaps not all the time, -- with good or bad consequences, what side effects may we expect if this 8% causes some cells to be identified as infected? Could it result in huge cell death ?

Is life considered a virus? (1)

JustAnotherIdiot (1980292) | about 3 years ago | (#37049022)

I don't want it curing me of life, i quite enjoy this disease.

"Type of RNA only produced by infected cells" (1)

Arancaytar (966377) | about 3 years ago | (#37049042)

If there were even a tiny fraction of exceptions, things would get very ugly...

But, it's a shame really... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37049070)

that this drug may never make it to market. The FDA would lose so much money if a lot of those viruses were 'cured'.

Remember that the FDA has shareholders to keep happy.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>