Most Awesome Medical Breakthrough Since Penicillin

Oh no, I might die! T_T

Just kidding. But seriously, this is amazing news. I'm just a tiny bit cautious, but that's the pessimist in me acting up.

The one thing that concerns me is, if it may shed light on curing diseases brought on by viruses does it show hope to help eradicate HIV?

Eradicate... probably not.
Help people with HIV/AIDS live much longer?
Hell yes.

Eradicate... probably not.
Help people with HIV/AIDS live much longer?
Hell yes.

Well, eradicate wasn't a well chosen word. But yes, I meant help people who contracted HIV.

I'm allergic to penicillin... so pineapple it! But dam this stuff is amazing... Too bad it's not gonna reach stores soon because of stupid greedy people...

In other news... have you guys heard about the new possible cure of cancer? That it's not being researched further more because it's too cheap and no one would make a profit from them... pineapple this planet and it's people...

The one thing that concerns me is, if it may shed light on curing diseases brought on by viruses does it show hope to help eradicate HIV?

I'm not sure. I don't know if this DRACO works on retroviruses. If it did, that would be fantastic.

it's not being researched further more because it's too cheap and no one would make a profit from them... pineapple this planet and it's people...

This.

Whatever the fuck happened to the hippocratic oath, dammit?!

Well, if it still doesnt work on HIV then we still have a long way to go... :/ And why prolong their suffering anyway ?

Well, if it still doesnt work on HIV then we still have a long way to go... :/ And why prolong their suffering anyway ?

They wouldn't be suffering, that's the thing.
This plus penicillin would effectively be an exoimmune system (just made that word up).
pineapple the common cold. pineapple influenza. pineapple Ebola. pineapple Marburg. pineapple cancer. pineapple VIRUSES.

Well I didn't mean to exclude other viruses, but HIV has proven to be very resistant to new drugs. Back when it was first discovered it was mentioned it would only take about two years to find a vaccine for "the AIDS." Look at us now. I only focused on HIV because of this, and because of how it mutates so much.

Either way, great awesome super jjang discovery which will hopefully not turn out to be "too good to be true."

In other news... have you guys heard about the new possible cure of cancer? That it's not being researched further more because it's too cheap and no one would make a profit from them... pineapple this planet and it's people...

Cancer is not one single disease: Cancer is a large group of very different diseases. There will likely never be one cure for cancer. That's just not how cancer works. Not even "breast cancer" is one type of cancer, it's many types requiring different treatments. Secondly, cancer research is big business - there's always a way to make money off something that works, and either way, there are plenty of governmental grants in a lot of countries specifically geared towards such research should the pharmaceutical companies not want to fund it.
Also see this post from the Respectful Insolence blog by David Gorski (a breast cancer specialist): http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/0..._again.php and the links to his numerous posts about the same topic earlier.

Eos, look carefully at what you put in your hover spoiler. You just stabbed your own foot. And please... correct that spelling mistake in this thread's title. [Thanks]

HIV resistance to drugs work by overcoming the selectivity of the drugs for their targets. You cannot run from natural selection. Somewhere, somehow, something will get through its limitations. That was why this was one of the things I'm expecting them to work on. That's also why I suggested using lentiviruses.

That cancer cure thing is a different ball game. There are so many factors that will promote neoplasias. Go read The Hallmarks of Cancer - The Next Generation.

If pharmas won't fund it, NIH will... if they write a sufficiently convincing proposal and "make enough noise".

We don't know if this works on HIV or not. My guess is: not likely, and/or it takes a significantly long time to clear the viral load, hence requiring a combinatorial treatment. It will be many years before we know some of the answers to the questions we asked (or at least, the queries I dumped a page back).

Hadriel

Eos, look carefully at what you put in your hover spoiler. You just stabbed your own foot.

You're going to have to explain how and why you believe something rather than replying with cryptic innuendo if you expect to be paid any attention.

Because what you typed is: double stranded DNA. What the paper exactly says is: double stranded RNA.

And I'll explain what happens a little more. In the replication process of HIV and several other similar retroviruses, the (+)-RNA strand 1) is expressed directly to give some viral protein machinery, and 2) is used as a template for RNA-dependent DNA polymerase (a.k.a. reverse transcriptase). The RNA in this RNA-DNA duplex is degraded, and that (-)-DNA strand now serves as a template for DNA synthesis to give a double-stranded DNA. Therefore, theoretically, the closest thing to a double-stranded RNA in a HIV cell is either 1) siRNA or miRNA, or 2) the RNA-DNA duplex. None of these are exactly the same as double stranded RNA, and for damn good reasons this serves to doubt the effectiveness of DRACO on HIV-infected cells.

I don't say things for nothing. It is a glaringly obvious error in your hover spoiler, for anyone sufficiently well versed in science.

Oh I'll throw in one more query - excessive interferon-like response resulting in disruption in bodily function e.g. excessive inflammation. Not terribly different from the query on excessive apoptotic effects w.r.t. the body.

One last edit: HIV is unique because it attacks the very system that is supposed to guard us - our immune system. The same goes for cancer - one key hallmark of cancer cells is the loss of at least one tumour suppressor gene (product), notably p53 (yeah yeah). Those are supposed to protect us, so if what protects us now fails... then... obviously the rest will start to crumble.

Hadriel

I don't say things for nothing. It is a glaringly obvious error in your hover spoiler, for anyone sufficiently well versed in science.

You say it's glaringly obvious, but even after your explanation I don't see how you've arrived at your conclusion or can make any statements regarding the effectiveness of the treatment against it with any degree of certainty. At best your entire stance boils down to "I'll believe it when I see it" and that hardly requires condescension since you're honestly in no better position than anyone else who isn't actually working on it to determine if it's viable or not.

Also a very simple google search provides more than enough evidence that my assumption regarding it's efficiency was either correct or is being assumed to be correct by the general populace;

http://newsfeedresearcher.com/data/artic...draco.html

In what might be the greatest medical discovery since penicillin, scientists have developed a broad-spectrum drug which they claim can cure everything -- from the common cold to HIV to almost any other virus one can think of.

The general populace is not sufficiently well-informed to judge whether it is truely that magic bullet we're looking for. Until you know exactly how DRACO works i.e. read the paper and understand it or get someone to explain to you how it works (objectively) and understand what it can and/or cannot do, I'm sorry your words aren't much better than mine. Look, this is science: they tested A, B, C, D, but have not tested E to Z. We tend to hope, and make reasonable assumptions, but until it actually is tested, nobody is right or wrong in saying if E works or doesn't work. Why do you think I said "my guess"?

Fine. Here's a good example of why DNA and RNA are so different. Why does your ribosome translate RNA and not DNA? Why do you think HIV's reverse-transcriptase is "RNA-dependent" DNA polymerase? Everything in that hover spoiler, and from my explanation, suggests that there is no chance of double stranded RNA originating from the HIV payload or downstream processes, and RNA-DNA duplex is therefore hardly similar to double stranded RNA.
Don't buy it? Then it's no one's loss. I've explained it clearly (at least, I think it is perfectly clear to me and most people), and nobody loses a piece of meat by failing to get my idea.

I don't think the media is the best place to obtain such opinions. Science blogs... a little better. I am very sure you are sufficiently mature to judge if that URL you just put (and your google search) gives sufficiently balanced views, or if it has too much optimism in it that it blinds people. You probably have read my comments on previous threads with similar reports of big discoveries. Always, always, be cautious, and never give more hope than you should. There are (up till now) no absolutes in this world, and DRACO is no exception.

So am I snuffing this discovery? Nope. I've dumped a whole lot of queries, but I definitely will say that this has great promise, because the concept is very good, and it works for now. Until they do more, hope all you want, but it's not going to change any future results. Just feel that if they put in a little more effort, this paper would probably have made it into CNS...

I'll inform you that the scientific community scrutinises details very carefully, just like your hover spoiler and the words you typed just before it.

Hadriel
[hope is such a wonderous, and yet terrible thing]

The general populace is not sufficiently well-informed to judge whether it is truly that magic bullet we're looking for. Until you know exactly how DRACO works i.e. read the paper and understand it or get someone to explain to you how it works (objectively) and understand what it can and/or cannot do

That's irrelevant. This thread is about what they've advertised it can do, which is effectively remove any known virus. Until that claim is proven otherwise giving your own opinion about how it can't possibly work based on the limited info you have is just being needlessly negative and the way you chose to do it was pointlessly condescending on top of that.

That's irrelevant. This thread is about what they've advertised it can do, which is effectively remove any known virus. Until that claim is proven otherwise giving your own opinion about how it can't possibly work based on the limited info you have is just being needlessly negative and the way you chose to do it was pointlessly condescending on top of that.

Actually, we don't know if it works until it's tested.
He's not saying it can't work, he's saying:

until it actually is tested, nobody is right or wrong in saying if E works or doesn't work.

He's seen too many "miracle drugs" that will save everything, and is being a cynic about this one. Sure, it might work, and then everyone will be happy. If it doesn't work, he won't have invested himself too much in it.

Actually, we don't know if it works until it's tested.

The thread isn't about whether it works or not.
It's about what it's claimed to do.

The most anyone should invest in this thread is "oh, that'll be nice if it works".
No one is pinning their hope of survival on it, so going into lengthy explanation of how it can't possibly work as described is pointless.

Actually, we don't know if it works until it's tested.
He's not saying it can't work, he's saying:

He's seen too many "miracle drugs" that will save everything, and is being a cynic about this one. Sure, it might work, and then everyone will be happy. If it doesn't work, he won't have invested himself too much in it.

"Miracle drugs", as in pseudo-scientific garbage? I mean, I'm not trying to throw anyone under the bus, but this is MIT we are talking about here.

And even if this isn't the "miracle cure" like it purports itself to be, it is still a major breakthrough and can pave the way for future medicinal-technology.