Potential new drug could cure nearly any viral infection

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 11, 2011 12:22 AM GMT
    Potentially _very_ exciting.

    http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2011/antiviral-0810.html

    Now, in a development that could transform how viral infections are treated, a team of researchers at MIT’s Lincoln Laboratory has designed a drug that can identify cells that have been infected by any type of virus, then kill those cells to terminate the infection.

    In a paper published July 27 in the journal PLoS One, 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.

    The drug works by targeting a type of RNA produced only in cells that have been infected by viruses. “In theory, it should work against all viruses,” says Todd Rider, a senior staff scientist in Lincoln Laboratory’s Chemical, Biological, and Nanoscale Technologies Group who invented the new technology.

    Because the technology is so broad-spectrum, it could potentially also be used to combat outbreaks of new viruses, such as the 2003 SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome) outbreak, Rider says.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 11, 2011 1:01 AM GMT
    Interesting, although it would only work for viruses that produce long dsRNA. (e.g. HIV I don't think does it).

    I always thought it made more sense to target mammalian proteins instead of viral or bacterial proteins (because we simply don't have the potential for rapid mutation). Similarly, drugs that target conserved pathways in apoptosis should work a lot better than chemo (which indiscriminately kills fast replicating cells) for cancers.

    Potential caveat: Drugs that target eukaryotic proteins usually (but not always) have more side effects than those that target viral/bacterial proteins. E.g. drugs that deal with parasites are notoriously tough to take.

    But even if a single drug just targeting either adenoviruses, influenza and rhinoviruses successfully comes from this approach, it would have been worthwhile. Put it in the water and eliminate colds during winter! icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 11, 2011 1:30 AM GMT
    Lovely. And at the same time that the govt. (ahem, TeaBaggers and Republicans) have cut medical research and NIH funding more than during any other time in history.

    What you're looking at is dead science. This won't be going anywhere. Drug companies certainly don't want any silver bullet remedies - not ever - and they have govt. in their back pockets. You have to keep the shareholders happy and the CEOs in their McMansions, so there you have it.

    I wouldn't be expecting any miracle drugs, cures ... no significant breakthroughs in medicine, for at least another 10 - 15 years.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 11, 2011 1:03 PM GMT
    RiverRising saidLovely. And at the same time that the govt. (ahem, TeaBaggers and Republicans) have cut medical research and NIH funding more than during any other time in history.

    What you're looking at is dead science. This won't be going anywhere. Drug companies certainly don't want any silver bullet remedies - not ever - and they have govt. in their back pockets. You have to keep the shareholders happy and the CEOs in their McMansions, so there you have it.

    I wouldn't be expecting any miracle drugs, cures ... no significant breakthroughs in medicine, for at least another 10 - 15 years.


    Except for the fact that these drugs would be blockbusters. Shareholders would be happy for that - if you only knew the number of companies devoted to "silver bullet" type cures ... How little you seem to understand markets.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 11, 2011 8:18 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    RiverRising saidLovely. And at the same time that the govt. (ahem, TeaBaggers and Republicans) have cut medical research and NIH funding more than during any other time in history.

    What you're looking at is dead science. This won't be going anywhere. Drug companies certainly don't want any silver bullet remedies - not ever - and they have govt. in their back pockets. You have to keep the shareholders happy and the CEOs in their McMansions, so there you have it.

    I wouldn't be expecting any miracle drugs, cures ... no significant breakthroughs in medicine, for at least another 10 - 15 years.


    Except for the fact that these drugs would be blockbusters. Shareholders would be happy for that - if you only knew the number of companies devoted to "silver bullet" type cures ... How little you seem to understand markets.


    Oh, really? Considering my partner worked for NIH, and he's currently involved in R&D and owns a couple patents, himself ... I think I now a lot more about this "market" than you do.

    Do some research on the downside for big pharma when major breakthroughs occur in medicine BEFORE you open your pie hole.
  • danisnotstr8

    Posts: 2579

    Aug 11, 2011 8:20 PM GMT
    RiverRising said
    riddler78 said
    RiverRising saidLovely. And at the same time that the govt. (ahem, TeaBaggers and Republicans) have cut medical research and NIH funding more than during any other time in history.

    What you're looking at is dead science. This won't be going anywhere. Drug companies certainly don't want any silver bullet remedies - not ever - and they have govt. in their back pockets. You have to keep the shareholders happy and the CEOs in their McMansions, so there you have it.

    I wouldn't be expecting any miracle drugs, cures ... no significant breakthroughs in medicine, for at least another 10 - 15 years.


    Except for the fact that these drugs would be blockbusters. Shareholders would be happy for that - if you only knew the number of companies devoted to "silver bullet" type cures ... How little you seem to understand markets.


    Oh, really? Considering my partner worked for NIH, and he's currently involved in R&D and owns a couple patents, himself ... I think I now a lot more about this "market" than you do.

    Do some research on the downside for big pharma when major breakthroughs occur in medicine BEFORE you open your pie hole.


    I think it's cute that this kid thinks he can lecture you on "understanding markets." LOL. You're still my favorite, RR.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 11, 2011 8:50 PM GMT
    Are you still in NYC? If so, we gots to do drinks.
  • danisnotstr8

    Posts: 2579

    Aug 11, 2011 9:07 PM GMT
    RiverRising saidAre you still in NYC? If so, we gots to do drinks.


    I'm in Chicago. I plan on staying. But when I make it back there, or if you make it out here, let me know.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 11, 2011 9:08 PM GMT
    RiverRising said
    riddler78 said
    RiverRising saidLovely. And at the same time that the govt. (ahem, TeaBaggers and Republicans) have cut medical research and NIH funding more than during any other time in history.

    What you're looking at is dead science. This won't be going anywhere. Drug companies certainly don't want any silver bullet remedies - not ever - and they have govt. in their back pockets. You have to keep the shareholders happy and the CEOs in their McMansions, so there you have it.

    I wouldn't be expecting any miracle drugs, cures ... no significant breakthroughs in medicine, for at least another 10 - 15 years.


    Except for the fact that these drugs would be blockbusters. Shareholders would be happy for that - if you only knew the number of companies devoted to "silver bullet" type cures ... How little you seem to understand markets.


    Oh, really? Considering my partner worked for NIH, and he's currently involved in R&D and owns a couple patents, himself ... I think I now a lot more about this "market" than you do.

    Do some research on the downside for big pharma when major breakthroughs occur in medicine BEFORE you open your pie hole.


    Lol - so owning a patent means that you know how markets work? So let me get this straight - you believe that private health insurers (also worth in the billions of dollars when it comes to market capitalization) who pay for expensive ongoing treatments and who encourage patients and doctors to prescribe generics wouldn't pay for something that cures and alleviates a significant cost?

    And you also believe that all pharma is big pharma?

    Of course in your world I'm sure corporations are all out to get you? Perhaps you might consider a bit of common sense before you bother responding. icon_wink.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 11, 2011 9:15 PM GMT
    Big pharma has a wonderful practice of buying up the competition. Trust me, if you get an offered for a few hundred million dollars for your company that is still testing a drug (that means no guarantee of approval by the FDA), you will take it.

    I have met a lot of people from the industry, and while they have a very warped sense of helping people, they do believe they are actually helping people.

    I do not think that a legitimate break through in medicine would be held back by pharmaceutical companies. Again, this is my opinion and you can berate me with your but neither one of us is going to be able to present solid evidence for either side -- damn those "trade secrets"
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 11, 2011 9:36 PM GMT
    riddler78 said...Lol - so owning a patent means that you know how markets work?...
    He didn't say "markets." He said, "this 'market'."