Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Cod Enzyme Kills Bird Flu

Posted by samzenpus on from the fish-your-flu-away dept.

Jon Golden writes "An Icelandic cod enzyme might be the cure for bird flu. A recent experiment, which the Icelandic company Ensímtaekni hf. took part in, indicates that in five minutes, the isolated fish enzyme killed 99 percent of H5N1 viruses. The killer enzyme, called penzim, was extracted from the intestines of cod by Ensímtaekni and is currently being developed for beauty products and various types of medicine. The experiment on the H5N1 virus was conducted in London. CEO of Ensímtaekni and biochemist Jón Bragi Bjarnason said he is very excited about the results of the bird flu experiment. "People have feared that the bird flu virus will change into a human flu virus and now we have a likely cure in case that happens." Bjarnason also believes that penzim might prove a cure for common flu and cold, eczema in children and arthritis."

14 of 206 comments (clear)

  1. Cure? by nebaz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Not to state the obvious here, but if it kills 90% of the virus, doesn't that just mean that next year we'll get a flue completely immune to this stuff?

    --
    Rhymes that keep their secrets will unfold behind the clouds.There upon the rainbow is the answer to a neverending story
    1. Re:Cure? by HappySqurriel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As a guess, I would assume that this would involve much further study to determine why the enzyme was so successful in the first place and then try to make it much more potent; essentially, they see the possibility of making a cure from this but it is not ready yet.

    2. Re:Cure? by malsdavis · · Score: 4, Informative

      The virus may mutate into a form resistant to the enzyme in the future but it would then no longer be the same virus strain, the virus would have to start all over again and it may not even succeed. There is no reason why other 'cured' viruses like smallpox & polio couldn't have mutated and beat their cures (although influenza does mututate more than small pox) but they didn't and now the world is free of them.

      If proven effective in the real world then it is still a cure, saying otherwise is like saying "Why bother trying to cure the disease, everyone is going to die someday".

    3. Re:Cure? by cosmicaug · · Score: 5, Interesting
      As a guess, I would assume that this would involve much further study to determine why the enzyme was so successful in the first place and then try to make it much more potent; essentially, they see the possibility of making a cure from this but it is not ready yet.


      As a wild assed guess, it is so successful in the first place because it is probably some fairly potent and fairly non selective protease. The fact that it kills viruses in a test tube means almost nothing. For this to be effective as a drug it must be able to kill these viruses in a living organism and it must do so while producing minimal damage to said living organism.
    4. Re:Cure? by megaditto · · Score: 5, Funny
      Since this sounds too good to be true, I think it has to be taken with a grain of salt.

      Well, a 1-in-10 dilution of chlorine-based household bleach will kill 100% of the germs. But what's good for treating biohazard might not be good for treating children.

      I know it's Troll Wednesday, but what the hell...
      --
      Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
    5. Re:Cure? by tloh · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There is an infectious threshold that a contagion needs to pass before it can spread through a population as an epidemic. If used properly, a drug that is 99% effective can nip it in the bud before the epidemic stage provides an opportunity for widspread replication and the chances for mutation.. If it doesn't reproduce much in the wild, it doesn't get a whole lot of opportunity to mutate into something dangerous. Used incorrectly, or abused in obviously stupid ways to serve other ends, be it political or otherwise, resistance *will* be a problem in the future.

      The problem of non-human hosts (birds, obviously, but also swines), however, complicates the picture a bit. Using drugs to treat human cases goes a long way toward keeping an epidemic in check. This is especially true considering how mobile we are in this day and age. The agriculture industry has also had mixed success in keeping domestic livestock safe. But what worries a lot of experts are migratory wild birds. They are the one variable we have almost no control over.

      On a slightly different note, the flu seems to be giving up a lot of its secrets. There is a timely article from reuters via Yahoo that highlights some new (?maybe old but uncirculated in the mainstream press?) information researchers have uncovered about the 1918 flu and the similarities to H5N1.

      As such, maybe this drug, if developed and used properly, is enough to deal with the problem. Kill 99% with the drug. Let the immune system, unmolested and unprovoked, deal with the remaining 1%.
      --
      Stay sentient. Don't drink bad milk.
  2. Act of Cod? by halovaa · · Score: 5, Funny

    What God giveth, Cod taketh away

  3. The amazing Cod by Giant+Ape+Skeleton · · Score: 4, Funny

    Cod...is there anything they can't do?

    --
    The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits.
  4. A few interesting things about the bird flu by gd23ka · · Score: 4, Interesting

    and why I am sick and tired of the subject...

    There are at least a dozen _known_ diseases that will just as gleefully sicken or even kill the human animal.
    Why we're so upset about the bird flu and what makes it special, I don't know, except of course that the entire
    subject is pushed into our faces and through our ears nonstop through the media. (Just to forestall some
    comments: The rabies virus could mutate too and become airborne for all we know. Gnade uns Gott should that ever
    happen).

    One thing that is however noteworthy about the bird flu (wohoo!) is that "Tamiflu" the experimental drug that is
    supposed to alleviate its symptoms was developed by Gilead Sciences, the company Donald Rumsfeld was Chairman
    of the Board of during 1997 until being sworn in as Secretary of Defense in 2001. Another noteworthy thing is
    that the United States Government has purchased and stockpiled large amounts of this largely unproven medication
    and guess who still owns stock in Gilead? (La Rouche pharmaceuticals produces the drug but it pays royalties to
    Gilead).

    1. Re:A few interesting things about the bird flu by cosmicaug · · Score: 5, Insightful
      There are at least a dozen _known_ diseases that will just as gleefully sicken or even kill the human animal.
      Why we're so upset about the bird flu and what makes it special, I don't know, except of course that the entire
      subject is pushed into our faces and through our ears nonstop through the media. (Just to forestall some
      comments: The rabies virus could mutate too and become airborne for all we know. Gnade uns Gott should that ever
      happen).


      That's a pretty fucking awful example to pick.

      It is bloody unlikely that rabies will mutate into an airborne virus anytime soon. It would essentially have to become a completely different virus.

      Influenza, on the other hand, is known for it's amazing mutational and recombinational "ability".

      Rabies is not known for causing great pandemics associated producing very substantial mortality.

      Influenza, on the other hand, is known for causing great pandemics producing very substantial mortality.

      Rabies does not truly have the potential to create massive epidemics in livestock animals which may serve as a reservoirs from whence a human disease outbreak may start.

      Avian influenza, on the other hand, does.

      Rabies does not truly have the potential to create massive epidemics in wild animals which may serve as widespread infectious sources for domestic animals and as a reservoir from whence a human disease outbreak may start.

      Avian influenza, on the other hand, does.

      Animal infected by rabies are very rarely (if ever) the types to engage in the sorts of great migrations which may sometimes literally span the globe.

      Animals infected by avian influenza, on the other hand, sometimes are.

      I could probably go on (or maybe not --but I'm not about to try).
  5. This May Bring Back The Old Cure-All by Soloact · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This might bring back the old use of Cod Liver Oil. Our Grandmothers weren't stupid, they knew its health benefits.

  6. Birds/Fish by Nux'd · · Score: 5, Funny

    Nice one nature..

    Give the ability to fight off bird flu to an animal most unlikely to encounter a bird.

    Lucky fishes..

  7. Well that explains it by mgabrys_sf · · Score: 5, Funny

    Probably why I've never seen a Cod sneeze before.

  8. Flu is newsworthy because it's killed before by derdesh · · Score: 4, Informative

    One reason epidemiologists are especially concerned about avian flu because flu pandemics have killed tens of millions of people before. This was in 1918 when the public health system was less developed, but population densities and the mobility of the human population are much greater today.

    Another respondent has already detailed the other reasons why an avian flu is logistically more threatening. Your political/conspiracy theory may be completely true and valid, but the fact remains that people are concerned about the flu rather than ebola or airborne rabies because it's the disease that has been observed to kill in great numbers in the recent, documented past.

    The fact that Donald Rumsfeld might be profiteering from the hype does not mean that avian flu is not a real threat.