Ending Viral Disease

[Umbran]

But not all viruses are double stranded RNA type.

Correct. I, at least, would expect the drug would likely be less effective against those that don't use double-stranded RNA. It might have *some* effect - the rate of binding to single-strand need not be zero...

But still, I wonder why he's making claims about how DRACO could cure the human cold, influenza, and HIV, as these are all single-strand viruses.

Edit: Oh, I see!

The drug binds to the RNA not in the virus, or even as the viral RNA is floating around in the cell, but *during transcription*. A that point, you will have double-strand RNA in the cell, and the drug will work.

 

[Jan van Leyden]

Searching for the guy's work yields this from 2011. Looks like his research is going much slower than hoped for, with only three new successful tests in four years. Maybe MIT and funding institutions lost patience with him. This could mean that his work's prospects aren't as good as they read in the Indiegogo campaign.

 

[tomBitonti]

Some interesting reads:

A discussion specific to "DRACO", which is to say, "Double-stranded RNA [dsRNA] Activated Caspase Oligomerizer", the treatment which is being funded:

http://www.longecity.org/forum/topic/75329-draco-kills-all-virus-infected-cells/

As a side note, an interesting tidbit on retroviruses and brain function:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/01/150112093129.htm

Thx!

TomB

 

[Umbran]

This would mean that his work's prospects aren't as good as they read in the Indiegogo campaign.

Not necessarily. That would depend on *why* there have only been three successful tests. Was it an actual failure in his drug? Was there a general lack of funding, so he couldn't perform more tests? Did his other duties or commitments preclude a more aggressive testing plan?

Consider the expected funding source - drug companies. Assume, for the moment, that this drug can literally cure the common cold and flu. How much revenue do those drug companies stand to lose in the form of lost symptomatic remedy sales? NyQuil? A thing of the past!

They could make that up by making it expensive, but then they have a PR nightmare - "Drug companies could cure the common cold, flu, and HIV cheaply, but *won't*!!!1!"

Plus, consider that $100K is small, in funding grant terms. Maybe this is less about getting funds, and is more about using internet media to foster awareness, to overcome drug company reticence.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

And four years seems too short of a time, and $500,000 a year too little money to bring a drug to market. There would need to be a bunch of trials, which seem likely to cost a heck of a lot more than $500K / year for four years. That seems like it would cover basic research, and barely that.

Thx!
TomB

That's not even in the ballpark for enough money to bring a drug to market, which is measured in billions, but it's enough to get started. The way these things usually work is a small company will take development as far as they can, then sell off the drug to a big pharma who will bear the cost and risk of phase 3 clinical trials, which can be 90% of the total cost of development.

This looks good, but I spent some time in venture looking at this type of things, and there are a lot of prospects out there that look good and it's very difficult for even the experts to make guesses about what will pan out, as shown by the number of drug research companies supported by savvy investors that fail.

 

[Jan van Leyden]

Not necessarily. That would depend on *why* there have only been three successful tests. Was it an actual failure in his drug? Was there a general lack of funding, so he couldn't perform more tests? Did his other duties or commitments preclude a more aggressive testing plan?

Upps, my would should have been a could. Anyway, it sounds to me like he couldn't convince other parties to fund the remaining work.

 

[CaptainGemini]

Viruses are theorized to be part of the essential mechanisms of human evolution. If this is correct, what he's proposing could be a very, very bad idea in the long run.

 

[Umbran]

Viruses are theorized to be part of the essential mechanisms of human evolution. If this is correct, what he's proposing could be a very, very bad idea in the long run.

Once you are born, if the virus doesn't affect the testes or ovaries, it isn't directly impacting human genetics.

Otherwise, this becomes as bad an idea as penicillin, or every other life-saving technology, really.

 

[CaptainGemini]

Once you are born, if the virus doesn't affect the testes or ovaries, it isn't directly impacting human genetics.

Otherwise, this becomes as bad an idea as penicillin, or every other life-saving technology, really.

Penicillin contributed to the current problem with super-bacteria that are immune to just about everything medical science can throw at them that isn't also deadly to humans. I would say that is a fine example of the exact type of problem I'm talking about: A short-term solution that causes a much worse long-term problem.

 

[Umbran]

Penicillin contributed to the current problem with super-bacteria that are immune to just about everything medical science can throw at them that isn't also deadly to humans.

There's a logical failure of thinking of that as a "problem", though.

Penicillin (or any other antibiotic, they're all the same in this sense) can become obsolete, so you can't use it.

How is that more of a problem than the case of not having it at all? With penicillin, you get to save many lives. Eventually it may stop working well, but in the meantime, human (and animal) welfare is improved. Without the drug, those lives are not improved. This is better?

Remember that "super-bacteria" are not super except in terms of their resistance to drugs. It isn't like using antibiotics results in them being otherwise nastier.