Slashdot Mirror
Virus Tamed To Attack Cancer, Cancer Drugs To Treat Alcoholism
ScienceDaily is reporting that scientists at Oxford University seem to have adapted a virus so that it attacks cancer cells but does not hurt healthy cells. "Adenovirus is a DNA virus widely used in cancer therapy but which causes hepatic disease in mice. Professor Len Seymour and colleagues found that introducing sites into the virus genome that are recognized by microRNA 122 leads to hepatic degradation of important viral mRNA, thereby diminishing the virus' ability to adversely affect the liver, while maintaining its ability to replicate in and kill tumor cells." Relatedly, cancer drugs already approved for use may be cross-functional as a treatment for alcohol addiction. "Now, the researchers show that flies and mice treated with erlotinib also grow more sensitive to alcohol. What's more, rats given the cancer-fighting drug spontaneously consumed less alcohol when it was freely available to them. Their taste for another rewarding beverage -- sugar water -- was unaffected."
In any virus intended for therapeutic use in humans, allowing the virus to retain its reproductive mechanisms is just a bad idea. Viruses mutate rapidly and there's no guarantee that such a modified virus might not develop the right signals to enter and reproduce in healthy human cells. More promising efforts using engineered viruses involve the isolated production of viral structural RNA and coat proteins without the complete genome ever being copied or reproduced. This creates viral smart-particles that can be re-engineered to deliver payloads (therapeutics, contrast agents, nanoparticles etc) into targeted cell species. Nanovector is a recent start-up out of NC State University to commercialize this tech developed at a lab I used to work in as an undergrad.
Along the same lines as I Am Legend, there was that whole John Titor thing back in 2000 where the guy writing it said stuff about using viruses to attack cancer. Yay internet culture to science.
By "alternative medical folk" do you mean quacks, or were you just misrepresenting their positions? Cancer as host cells gone awry (possibly due to an initial external influence, with the external influence not necessary for continued growth) is incontrovertible. If certain anti-fungals work on them, it's because it happens to work as an anti-cancer drug, it doesn't mean the cancer is fungus.
$_ = "wftedskaebjgdpjgidbsmnjgcdwatb"; tr/a-z/oh, turtleneck Phrase Jar!/; print
Because we all know that movie script writers always do their homework to get their science right
Well, they did their homework pretty well in "I Am Legend".
Everybody knows that the only way to survive the Zombie movie is with a 12-gauge shotgun. Will Smith's character uses the M4 carbine, and dies. His companion, Alice Braga's character, uses a shotgun and survives. QED
I am legend the book was about the story he just said. One guy thought he was the only survivor, but lived ONLY during the day. As such, he never saw the "crazy vampires" at night. SOME of them were indeed insane.. but most of them were normal people that just looked crazy. Anyways, "Legend man" slaughtered a ton until they tricked him with a little girl.. then at the end they tell him they are killing him because HE is the "vampire" like creature. Thus.. HE is THE legend.
So basically, -1 troll/offtopic is really slashdots way of saying "I hate that you thought of something before me."
Not that I'm endorsing the cure this man purports to sell, but the 12 steppers are a cultic bunch who attack anybody who dares critize their authority over the addiction treatment industry. Check out the end of this book chapter written by Stanton Peele. Stanton Peele is a man who has been pushing for a more scientific and less religious (12 step) approach to alcohol and addiction treatment. 12 steppers believe, for instance that the 12 steps were given to Bill Wilson by God. This is what's passed off as science in the addiction industry. AA is very very hostile towards any drug based treatment of alcoholism and has lobbied against drugs that treat alcohol dependence. They do this because they believe alcohoism is a "spiritual disease" and that the only true treatment is through god as interpred through the 12 steps. It's just about the only religion (and it has been ruled a religious organization by the courts) that the state mandates people attend. Does it work? No, and in some cases may actually cause harm (Brandsma study), but that's whole other can of worms.
The basis of the treatment can be summed up fairly quickly. Drinking alcohol releases endorphins, and the endorphins addict us to the alcohol with a force identical to morphine addiction. Taking an endorphin blocker results in a reversal of this effect, where drinking makes you loose interest in drinking over time.
The treatment that results from this effect is equally simple. You have the alcoholic take an endorphin blocker (naltrexone is typical) and then have them pursue their normal drinking habits. After about three to six months, 78% have significantly reduced desire to drink, 25% just stop drinking and have no desire to pick it back up again. I think you can see how this would put Betty Ford out of business and is indirect opposition to AA.
The fine details are a little more complicated, but only because it goes against a lot of logic. For instance, most people expect it to have a "diet pill" effect where it suppresses your urge to drink, and that's how the naltrexone tends to be prescribed. Used this way you'd actually have better results with a placebo, and people give up when it doesn't work that way.
But they wouldn't have to write a book if there were nothing else to say, would they?
Wake up - the future is arriving faster than you think.
Totally not your fault. My comment about the two stories being unrelated was something of a snide jab at the "relatedly" claim made in the summary.
So, article #1 is talking about the use of a modified virus to target a cancer. Actually, to be more accurate, it's talking about modifying a virus to avoid causing liver damage while killing cancer cells.
Apparently, the adenovirus strain that they used in this trial does a good job of killing cancer cells. However, it also does a good job of killing liver cells.
What they did was introduced a liver-specific microRNA binding site to the virus. Therefore, when the virus infects the liver and produces RNA, the liver's naturally-produced microRNA will recognize this and bind to it. That's all in the article, but I'll extrapolate and assume that the body's typical dsRNA mechanisms kick in at that point, destroy the RNA, and possibly induce an antiviral response.
So essentially, it appears that they're using a virus that is good at killing cancer but is also good at destroying the liver, and they're attaching a liver-specific "kill me" tag so that the liver can protect itself.
Ya think!?!?! The problem is that although the SC has ruled on the matter, nobody seems to care. Unless you have an attorney who knows what he's doing in this area, you can be sentenced to a religious organization for "treatment". Universities and Jobs coerce AA too, and good luck fighting them on it. There are too many members out there, and unlike most religions, you don't know who they are. What's so bad about it, other than principle? Well. despite the fact that AA gets 70% of it's membership from the health care and justice systems, there is the problem of people getting sucked in by cult-like means of deception.
Put yourself in the position of some shmo who for whatever reason (maybe with cause, maybe not) gets sent to a 12 step "recovery" group. Well. The "recovery" thing is sort of deceptive as they don't actually cure anything. There is frighteningly little in 12 step groups about actually quitting much of anything (save critical thinking which is referred to as "stinking thinking" in AA). "Recovery" in AA means lifelong meetings, relationship with a higher power, and strict adherence to AA doctrine which 12 steppers believe is "god inspired" through Bill Wilson (who was actually not that nice a charachter). I have no problem with religions if they advertise accurately, but AA masquerads as something it isn't, and loads it's language to decieve outsiders into believing it's something it's not. The lack of informed consent is what makes AA more cult-like than religion. People come in looking for help to quit drinking (or not) and are told that the *only* way is with AA and it's religious principles... or you *will die*.
So how did AA get so popular? Well. Couple reasons. 12th step, for one, is built in evangelism. You don't always know who they are. They don't advertise. They're anonymous after all. Secondly, oodles of people believing they have been helped, when often they're worse off. It's anecdotal evidence. What else do you expect. Thirdly, AA front groups like Hazelden have actively lobbied judges and others in authority.
End result of all this is religion in government and science gone down the pan.