# New drug can Eliminate any Virus



## Aegis (May 3, 2011)

It sounds almost too good be true but there are claims that scientists have found a very promising way to cure almost any virus-based disease:

New drug could cure nearly any viral infection

In short the new drug only targets double-stranded RNA (dsRNA) which is only found in viruses and not normal human or animal cells.


I hope it doesn't turn out to be a false hope but this would be wonderful news indeed if true.


----------



## Eylrid (Jun 25, 2009)

Aegis said:


> It sounds almost too good be true but there are claims that scientists have found a very promising way to cure almost any virus-based disease:
> 
> New drug could cure nearly any viral infection
> 
> ...


I just came here to post this.

Here is the article about it on the MIT website: http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2011/antiviral-0810.html

This is very big.


----------



## absentminded (Dec 3, 2010)

This could be the end of pathogenic disease as we know it. :mellow:


----------



## Souljorn (Dec 28, 2010)

The implications of this are huge, i'd also look out for the well being of Rider TH since unfortunately this kind of research doesn't come without its enemies. i hope they can have human trials by 2015 I mean if it can theoretically treat any viral infection then it must be capable to fight aids too.


----------



## MissJordan (Dec 21, 2010)

5 bucks says religious whack-jobs will get it banned....


----------



## sprinkles (Feb 7, 2010)

Not necessarily a good thing to be throwing around. Might be useful if used carefully.

Not all viruses are pathogenic to humans. Remember that viruses can effect everything, even bacteria and pests - stuff that we generally _don't want_ to be healthy. Viruses are necessary to have around, especially in water. Without viruses, water would be laden with bacteria, moreso than it already is, and the viruses that eat this bacteria are not harmful to other species usually.


----------



## Paradox of Vigor (Jul 7, 2010)

MissJordan said:


> 5 bucks says religious whack-jobs will get it banned....


What would be their incentive?


----------



## MissJordan (Dec 21, 2010)

Paradox of Vigor said:


> What would be their incentive?


"We're playing god."
"Disease is god's will."

It's all good, really.


----------



## Paradox of Vigor (Jul 7, 2010)

MissJordan said:


> "We're playing god."
> "Disease is god's will."
> 
> It's all good, really.


Tsahh, I doubt we'd let a few religious fanatics get in the way of a feat like this. So long as they don't start protesting or do something extreme we'll reap the rewards of our own WISDOM! Idiots...

Are there even enough of people like this to get organized about it? I figured the puritans would have died off by now.


----------



## TreeBob (Oct 11, 2008)

sprinkles said:


> Not necessarily a good thing to be throwing around. Might be useful if used carefully.
> 
> Not all viruses are pathogenic to humans. Remember that viruses can effect everything, even bacteria and pests - stuff that we generally _don't want_ to be healthy. Viruses are necessary to have around, especially in water. Without viruses, water would be laden with bacteria, moreso than it already is, and the viruses that eat this bacteria are not harmful to other species usually.


Well I don't think this would be an issue unless they sprayed the drug around the world like insecticide. I would assume this would be used on an individual basis or maybe later as a standard injection at an early age. Either way, it wouldn't rid the world of viruses it would merely make some humans impervious to their affects. Third world countries may still suffer either way, because they wouldn't be able to afford it.


----------



## sprinkles (Feb 7, 2010)

TreeBob said:


> Well I don't think this would be an issue unless they sprayed the drug around the world like insecticide. I would assume this would be used on an individual basis or maybe later as a standard injection at an early age. Either way, it wouldn't rid the world of viruses it would merely make some humans impervious to their affects. Third world countries may still suffer either way, because they wouldn't be able to afford it.


My main concern is that it would also kill beneficial viruses in the host, and prevent the host from also transferring beneficial viruses. Would also probably effect ones that fight off bacteria in your own body. I'm not saying that it shouldn't be used at all, just that in the microbial world this thing is like a huge cannon - or even a nuclear bomb.

It certainly wouldn't rid the world of viruses but if we aren't careful it could upset balance. Just look at how people literally wash their food too much, or how doctors prescribe too many antibiotics, and too often. It's become common and not many really think about it anymore.


----------



## absentminded (Dec 3, 2010)

MissJordan said:


> "We're playing god."
> "Disease is god's will."
> 
> It's all good, really.


So they die off and we can have some peace and quiet.


----------



## dusttrust (Mar 4, 2011)

Are there downsides to killing viruses? We know there are downsides into killing bacterias as much as we do, what about viruses anyone knows?


----------



## Peripheral (Jan 8, 2011)

What's the catch?
Also, how much does it cost?


----------



## Luke (Oct 17, 2010)

We could live for a lot longer if this works out.


----------



## The Proof (Aug 5, 2009)

let's not get carried away, drug companies may make it prohibitively expensive for regular people


----------



## Mumintroll (Aug 27, 2011)

O.k., a dummy question: are we sure viruses could not become resistant to this kind of drug? I know, not using dsRNA is a MAJOR change in the genomic of viruses, but then cells, for example, jumped at some time from RNA to DNA. So such switches are maybe even possible for viruses.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

The Proof said:


> let's not get carried away, drug companies may make it prohibitively expensive for regular people


Unfortunately, this will most likely be the case, especially for the first few decades of it's usage. Look at how expensive current drugs for things such as HIV and cancer are, often putting them out of reach of the people who are suffering the most from these viruses.


----------

