Re-Engineering the Immune System

destinyland notes a microbiology professor describing "Immunity on Demand" (or "Immunity 2.0") and wonders whether we could genetically engineer all the antibodies we need. "...there's a good chance this system, or something like it, will actually be in place within decades. Caltech scientists have already engineered stem cells into B cells that produce HIV-fighting antibodies — and an NIH researcher engineered T cells that recognize tumors which has already had promising clinical trials again skin cancer. Our best hope may be to cut out the middleman. Rather than merely hoping that the vaccine will indirectly lead to the antibody an individual needs, imagine if we could genetically engineer these antibodies and make them available as needed?"

Comments

beating the dead meme

[toastar]

I for one welcome our new T cell Overlords

I was under the impression

[Monkeedude1212]

That we can't actually see a majority of diseases under a microscope, only the antibodies our bodies produce to fight it off. Has that part been a myth or have we merely technologically advanced past that?

I find it difficult for us to engineer an antibody to fight against something we haven't actually detected yet.

Re:I was under the impression

[Mortiss]

Well, we will still leave our immune system to handle the unknown. However the concept of either enabling a mass and cheap production of specific antibodies against viruses like HIV or transferring the antibody producing B cells into our bodies is certainly interesting. I was under the impression that his was not done earlier mainly due to the prohibitive costs of treating everyone this way. Given that there is still no effective vaccine this may actually become viable prevention or treatment option.

Re:I was under the impression

[eparker05]

For most diseases the antibodies are easier to see because they are more widespread. It only takes a few virally infected cells to set off a massive immune response. The difficulty in engineering an antibody is the same difficulty as engineering any protein. Our knowledge of protein folding is still in it's infancy. So far, we have used evolutionary methods to find new antibodies. Perhaps someday we will be able to build them from the ground up, but not now.

Re:I was under the impression

[Rene S. Hollan]

replying because of a wrong mod. Meant Informative, NOT Funny

Re:I was under the impression

[Anonymous Coward]

How is it so hard, just put the blood sample in the analyzer, have the microD make a sample, inject said sample hypodermically... hmm, wait what year is it?

Re:I was under the impression

[Anonymous Coward]

replying because of a wrong mod. Meant Informative, NOT Funny

Not trying to be a jerk, but you could of just added to the conversation instead of adding to the clutter.

Re:I was under the impression

[joocemann]

We have much more powerful visualization means in science now, I recently watched a video of an HIV virus entering a cell.

But also I wanted to point out that while this theoretical process being discussed may not be usable for new diseases, there are many disease-causing viruses/microbes that are already identified but still afflict human health.

MRSA, HIV, HepatitisA/B/C, Herpes, Ghonnorhea, Chlamydia, most cancers... etc etc. So anyway, the value of the theoretical concept, if it were realized, is its ability to help with the various known problems that we could develop antibodies for and carry out deliberate controlled attacks.

Re:I was under the impression

[M8e]

Not trying to be a jerk, but you could of just added to the conversation instead of adding to the clutter.

Trying to be funny, but you could of just added to the conversation instead of adding to the clutter.

Re:I was under the impression

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I suppose. But, I had nothing to add. I really wanted to mod the post Informative, and my mouse hand moved too much.

It would be nice is Slashdot had an "undo mod" option, so one could remod. Make it cost something, so people don't change their mods willy-nilly, like the mod point you set incorrectly in the first place.

Clutter? About as much as "MOD THIS UP!" I suppose, which isn't exactly worthless.

Re:I was under the impression

[Hittite Creosote]

I assume you're thinking just of optical microscopes, where a standard one can see down to around 200nm. If you include electron microscopes, however, there are plenty that can see down to the size of individual atoms - so definitely enough resolution to see viruses. There are also a load more visualisation techniques around which can also give info on virus structures.

Re:I was under the impression

[StellarFury]

Your impression was very, very wrong. Not only can we see most disease-causing agents with electron microscopes, we have X-ray and/or NMR crystal structures of a huge number of viruses - meaning we know, down to a "where each individual atom is" level of accuracy, what these things look like.

Re:I was under the impression

[Thiez]

> It would be nice is Slashdot had an "undo mod" option, so one could remod. Make it cost something, so people don't change their mods willy-nilly, like the mod point you set incorrectly in the first place.

Maybe if the undo would have to be done within 5 minutes and you would still lose the modpoint? That sounds reasonable.

> Clutter? About as much as "MOD THIS UP!" I suppose, which isn't exactly worthless.

Actually, I always slap those with '-1 offtopic', which means the chance that I'll have modpoints left for the post they responded to goes down. Of course the exact same thing will happen to this post (but the knowledge that this one contains more content than "MOD THIS UP!" will help me sleep tonight ;)).

Re:I was under the impression

[Anonymous Coward]

You can post anonymously to undo moderation, just as long as you are logged in. This way not as many people have to see your useless post, and you don't absorb any offtopic mods.

Re:I was under the impression

[Rei]

I've always wondered whether some day it might be possible to have an implant that wirelessly receives new data definitions of proteins expressed by various pathogens and have it express the protein in a way that will trigger an immune response. Hence, you can automatically update everybody's immunity. Sort of like a computer virus scanner. "Oh, H10N7 has mutated into a virulent form and is now killing people in Taipei? Everyone within a 300 mile radius of Taipei with an implant who doesn't have a counterindication for it will start expressing antibodies to H10N7."

Obviously not everyone would *have* to have such an implant. But I'd certainly want one. Basically, an automatic flu shot every year, an automatic immunization against pandemics, an automatic immunization in case of biological attack, an automatic immunization against cancer-causing viruses, etc. Whenever an immunization passed FDA approval, if you were ever at risk for it, you could get it. You could even have such implants have two-way communication. If they could isolate what has made you sick, or even just what antibodies your body is producing to attack what's making you sick, they could submit that information for central analysis and outbreak control.

Re:I was under the impression

[jonadab]

> That we can't actually see a majority of diseases under a microscope

No, that's wrong. Well, it could be technically right (depending on how you define "disease"), but not in the way you were probably thinking.

If the human immune system is making antibodies to fight the disease, then there's a pathogen involved, which we most certainly can see under a microscope. (These days, microscopes can image amazingly small objects, much smaller than any protein. Not in color, of course, because we're not talking about light-refracting microscopes here. But that's really beside the point. Anyway, I'm not sure what "color" would even mean at the molecular level.)

The larger issue is that we understand the human immune system about as well as we understand the human brain. Talking about re-engineering it and making "Immune System 2.0" is pretty arrogant and unrealistic, IMO. Giving the immune system a sample of what it's supposed to fight and letting it learn to fight that (vaccination, in other words) is one thing. That's like letting the search dog sniff a scrap of the missing person's clothing so they know who they're supposed to find. Doing the actual searching is still up to the dog. Trying to improve on the actual disease-fighting process would be something else quite again. That's like trying to design a better dog. Human knowledge of how living systems work is just plain not up to that yet.

Re:I was under the impression

[xOneca]

[...] to have an implant that wirelessly receives new data definitions of proteins expressed by various pathogens and have it express the protein in a way that will trigger an immune response. [...] Basically, an automatic flu shot every year, an automatic immunization against pandemics, an automatic immunization in case of biological attack, an automatic immunization against cancer-causing viruses, etc.

Wait until someone enters through your backdoor and pushes your big red button of self-destruction.

Re:I was under the impression

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Sorcerer's Apprentice at work. "I know ALL about this! I'll get it to work BETTER for ME!"

Re:I was under the impression

[profplump]

I could go for the idea of on-site generation, and for now I'll let you gloss over how to make this device small or power it or provide supplies for it, but is this really something you're willing to leave open to wide-area wireless hacking? Wouldn't you rather have a device on your desk that can make injectable antibodies? Or at least limit the wireless to a very short range (say, less than 1 cm) so that hacking is limited to near-contact distances?

Re:I was under the impression

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, the smart people don't just turn on automatic update installation. They turn on automatic update downloading and review updates before approving them for installation.

Re:I was under the impression

[Rei]

and for now I'll let you gloss over how to make this device small or power it or provide supplies for it

There are a wide variety of ways to power implants, and depends on the power requirements. Everything from primary cells to electromagnetic induction to piezoelectricity to microbial fuel cells to direct glucose fuel cells to betavoltaics. I don't know enough about the process of the immune system "recognizing" a protein as a threat to say what supplies (if any) would be needed, whether the body itself could provide them, or what volume they'd need to take up.

but is this really something you're willing to leave open to wide-area wireless hacking?

It'd pay attention to digitally signed data only, of course. And there could always be the possibility to let the recipient choose whether or not to accept the particular "update".

Re:I was under the impression

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you sure about that?

From what I have read posting anonymous is the same whther logged in or not.

Re:I was under the impression

[Jurily]

I've always wondered whether some day it might be possible to have an implant that wirelessly receives new data definitions of proteins expressed by various pathogens and have it express the protein in a way that will trigger an immune response. Hence, you can automatically update everybody's immunity. Sort of like a computer virus scanner.

Microsoft Vaccine 2000 is configuring your immune system. This may take a few minutes. If your body stops responding for a long time and there is no brain activity please die. Setup will continue after you are reborn.

Re:I was under the impression

[vegiVamp]

And if the battery runs out, you die of a stupid cold. Either that, or some idiot *coughmcafeecough* accidentally uploads an antibody definition that fights off red blood cells.

Re:I was under the impression

[Rei]

And if the battery runs out, you die of a stupid cold.

Why would that happen? Who said anything about eliminating your natural immune system? The idea is to train the immune system to recognize things that it hasn't encountered yet as threats, not keep it from recognizing threats on its own.

Either that, or some idiot *coughmcafeecough* accidentally uploads an antibody definition that fights off red blood cells.

Right. Like that would meet FDA approval. And if it did, why wouldn't a conventional vaccine be at the same risk?

Re:I was under the impression

[vegiVamp]

For #1, I know, I already posted a similar comment elsewhere. Still, given how current corporatethink works, someone is bound to think it a good idea to take that pesky natural immune system out of the equation, "for improved stability".

As for #2, vaccines aren't uploaded to everyone at the same time, even in times of dire emergency. Also, there is ample documentation of a (marginal) number of vaccinees actually getting sick from the vaccine.

Re:I was under the impression

[Danse]

For #1, I know, I already posted a similar comment elsewhere. Still, given how current corporatethink works, someone is bound to think it a good idea to take that pesky natural immune system out of the equation, "for improved stability".

So it will allow us to remove people dumb enough to do that from the gene pool, benefiting humanity.

As for #2, vaccines aren't uploaded to everyone at the same time, even in times of dire emergency. Also, there is ample documentation of a (marginal) number of vaccinees actually getting sick from the vaccine.

Automatic or even wireless updates to this would be pretty crazy. Manual acceptance of any update should be the practice, so the updates would go out at a slower rate and only to those who want them.

Re:I was under the impression

[vegiVamp]

> So it will allow us to remove people dumb enough to do that from the gene pool, benefiting humanity.

I wish.

> Automatic or even wireless updates to this would be pretty crazy.

Yes, but are exactly what the guy I originally replied to proposed.

but then...

[Anonymous Coward]

umbrella corp will have to nuke raccoon city. MY MOTHER LIVES THERE MAN!

I am Will Smith!

[Anonymous Coward]

oh, this ain't gonna end well...

Here's hoping...

[Anonymous Coward]

...I don't die before they invent invincibility... biologically speaking of course :)

stoops.

Re:Here's hoping...

[Kjella]

Here's hoping I don't die before they invent invincibility... biologically speaking of course :)

Personally, I'm hoping they invent immortality instead. I've looked at the curves and honestly, relatively few people die "before their time" because we've become rather good at medicine but we've made very little impact on prolonging the real life span barring injury or disease. Very few of us, even those young today, will live to be 100 unless there's some real medical breakthroughs on repairing and restoring body and mind. If our bodies could stay like a 20 year old's forever, we could live to be a thousand years old already. The mortality rate for a 20 year old is <0,001.

Re:Here's hoping...

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Unfortunately, while there is some interesting stuff in the early theoretical stages, the only operationally ready technique with something vaguely resembling solid research backing is one that sucks a whole damn lot.

Calorie restriction.

That's progress for you

[Anonymous Coward]

What's next, mechanical sperm?

What could possibly go wrong?

[SigILL]

At least let's hope we won't all end up like that guy in TFA's illustration. Looks like he's missing something.

Re:What could possibly go wrong?

[Fallen Kell]

However that did lead to one of the greatest "Man Show" episodes ever...

Dangers of the right thing

[gmuslera]

Smarting up our immune system could turn to be a dumb idea, as a good part of us comes from virus

Re:Dangers of the right thing

[mcgrew]

Actally having too strong an immune system IS bad; that's what arthritis is, your body's immune system attacking you. But having bioengineered antibodies would ge great.

Too bad it will be "a few decades", I'll be dead by then.

Re:Dangers of the right thing

[LWATCDR]

Actually there is a theory that a lot of the autoimmune dieses we get are and artifact of the Black Death.
Those with a very strong immune system lived so now our immune systems maybe a little too good for our own good.

Re:Dangers of the right thing

[Anonymous Coward]

Crohn's Disease and Ulcerative Colitis falls into the category of the body attacking itself. Some research show too strong of a response while others show too weak of a response. Both are currently incurable because we don't know the cause. Doesn't do us a whole lot of good to engineer antibodies if we don't know causes.

Still, being able to engineer antibodies once we know causes would be cool.

Re:Dangers of the right thing

[g00ey]

I wouldn't agree to that. Autoimmune diseases such as arthritis and allergies is rather a sign that the immune system is "out of tune", not too strong. This means that the immune system is wasting its limited resources on the wrong thing.

Re:Dangers of the right thing

[jonadab]

> Actally having too strong an immune system IS bad; that's
> what arthritis is, your body's immune system attacking you.

Arthritis, lupus, Crohns, Grave's, Psoriasis, ... all kinds of fun stuff.

> Too bad it will be "a few decades", I'll be dead by then.

Heh. When speaking of the future development of a certain technology (medical or otherwise), "a few decades" typically either means "less than twenty years" or "never". In this case, let's just say I won't be betting any money on the former timeframe.

Re:Dangers of the right thing

[jonadab]

Oh, and then you've got allergies, in which case your immune system isn't directly attacking you per se, but it's overactively attacking something it doesn't really need to, and you're sort of getting caught in the crossfire.

Re:Dangers of the right thing

[Raptoer]

Arthritis is a class of diseases, meaning chronic degenerative joint pain.

There is osteoarthritis which is caused by wearing out the protective cartillage in your joints.
Some arthritis is caused by auto-immune diseases, including psoriatic and rheumatoid.

My mother has both psoriatic and rheumatiod and until recently had a lot of pain when moving. Some new steriods are allowing her to move pain free for the most part.

Re:Dangers of the right thing

[the_humeister]

I don't buy it. Every population has some members with autoimmune diseases. But the Black death reached its peak in Europe.

Re:Dangers of the right thing

[srothroc]

That's a neat idea; do you have links to sources?

Re:Dangers of the right thing

[penguinoid]

Actually, the very first job of immune cells is to recognize self. After they can recognize self, then they go on to attack non-self. If the immune system were to attack self, you get various autoimmune diseases ranging from diabetes to arthritis. So what I wonder about these, given that they grow in a lab and never recognize you, is whether they will tag our own cells?

Re:Dangers of the right thing

[Anonymous Coward]

This honestly means nothing.

That viral DNA is, in the vast majority or all of the cases, not being expressed. So a smarter immune system would not target it.

And if it is being expressed and making some necessary protein, then a smarter immune system wouldn't target it anyway because that protein would be recognized as self.

Re:Dangers of the right thing

[Chris Burke]

A lot of != all.

Certainly it's hard to argue that the strongest selective pressure for Europeans hasn't been for resistance to the plague (and other communicable diseases).

Re:Dangers of the right thing

[geekoid]

That makes no sense.
The Immune system doesn't get 'stronger'. What there are is some people whose immune system effectively fought off this specific disease better then others. That in no way means it is better at fighting off other things.

Re:Dangers of the right thing

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, interesting spelling checker you've got there.

Anyway, my take on this is that by supplanting the immune system with an artificial replacement, you'd probably be hampering your immune system (much like steroids shriveling your testes because your body doesn't think they're needed).

Re:Dangers of the right thing

[Hurricane78]

And that theory, as far as I know, is complete and utter bullshit.

My knowledge is, that autoimmune diseases always come up, when you combine something unnatural unhealthy, with something natural and normal.
Like Cillit Bang with cat hair. Or denatured proteins (most milk products) with tree pollen.

I know that a German doctor called Bruker had a huge amount of experience to such diseases, in the area of nutrition. With over 30,000 patients over the course of 30 years.
Well, anyone can state that. So we did put it to the test. A good friend of mine had a massive allergy-related asthma in the summer months. Without his inhalator he could barely breathe. And he had it since he was a child.
Then he started to eat as Bruker recommended it: No denatured proteins (so basically no milk products except for those that are mainly fat.), fresh whole grain flour/flakes/etc (preferably at least once a day in a non-heated sprouted way), meat as little heated as possible, fresh vegetables and fruits, no sugars & co, lots of variation.
And lo-and-behold, it worked! The first summer where he started, it got significantly better. The second summer, it was gone! We couldn’t believe it!
Later we found out, that it were mainly just the unnatural proteins in his case.

Which makes sense. Because if you think about them, proteins are basically very complex machines. And of course a broken machine will not work as intended.
Now it may still be used by the body, as if it weren’t broken. Causing all kinds of wrong results.

I don’t say that this is the magic solution to all health problems. But in case of allergies, I’m pretty damn convinced by that experience fitting exactly what Bruker described as his experience with 30,000 patients...

Re:Dangers of the right thing

[LanMan04]

Don't forget most people in the 1st world are essentially parasite-free. Our immune systems are tuned to fight parasites day and night. We don't have them anymore, so our mean-ass immune system looks for another target.

There have been studies (google them) about deliberately infecting people with specific kinds of benign worms (tape? round? not sure) who then have their autoimmune symptoms (as well as severe allergies) just disappear.

Re:Dangers of the right thing

[LWATCDR]

Nope not at all. It was on a light fluffy tv science show. So take it with a grain of salt.
It seems plausible but it would at best be a contributing factor.

Someone needs an editor

[wrencherd]

From TFA:

"We are not sure when this will all happen, but there’s a good chance it will, and perhaps the only question is when."

Hmmmmm . . .

Re:Someone needs an editor

[osu-neko]

From TFA:

"We are not sure when this will all happen, but there’s a good chance it will, and perhaps the only question is when."

Hmmmmm . . .

Very likely it'll be in a couple decades. I remember reading that back in the 80s.

Oh, wait...

Re:Someone needs an editor

[ThatsNotPudding]

Written by someone who's a big fan of bookends.

Funny phrasing

[interkin3tic]

Derya Unutmaz is an Associate Professor of Microbiology and Pathology at N.Y.U. School of Medicine. His current research is focused on understanding the function of human immune system.

I can tell him right now what the function of the human immune system is: to keep us from getting sick.

I'll take his grant money now.

Re:Funny phrasing

[Anonymous Coward]

Nonsense. The immune system frequently makes people sick. Leaving aside lupus and other auto-immune diseases for a moment, have you ever had a fever? That was your immune system making you sick, and fighting off an infection in the process.

Re:Funny phrasing

[Anonymous Coward]

Derya Unutmaz is an Associate Professor of Microbiology and Pathology at N.Y.U. School of Medicine. His current research is focused on understanding the function of human immune system.

I can tell him right now what the function of the human immune system is: to keep us from getting sick.

I'll take his grant money now.

Please expand your theory into a 100 page paper with several charts and graphs then submit it to the journal Nature. Once accepted by Nature please resubmit your request and tell us how you'd like the grant, in the form of a check or small non-sequential bills in a briefcase?

Re:Funny phrasing

[interkin3tic]

100 pages? Well that's no fair, Nature usually doesn't take articles longer than 5 pages.

Re:Funny phrasing

[dunkelfalke]

Not always. Many viruses fuck with the body's temperature regulation.

Re:Funny phrasing

[Anonymous Coward]

I can tell him right now what the function of [my computer] system is: to [read slashdot].

It's fun to simplify and summarize. (And yeah, paraphrasing is mildly entertaining as well).

Re:Funny phrasing

[geekoid]

Incorrect:

"to keep us from getting sick."

Correct:
"to keep us from getting a sickness, again."

Re:Funny phrasing

[interkin3tic]

For viral infections I've heard that too, but my understanding is that macrophages and other immune system cells will attack bacteria they haven't seen before. If you get a cut on your finger, you don't need to get septicemia once before your immune system starts fighting that bacteria. I also understand that the immune system helps to kill cells which are damaged, preventing you from getting cancer, and they do this from day one, without requiring you to recover from cancer.

Anyway, I'd argue that "keep us from getting sick again" falls within "keep us from getting sick" as the second statement doesn't exactly imply keeping us healthy without -ever- getting sick.

Unintended Consequences?

[assemblyronin]

FTA:

All this is, of course, a delicate proposition. In some ways, an overactive immune system is as much of a risk as an underactive one: more than a million people worldwide a year die from collateral damage, like septic shock after bacterial infection, and inflammations that may ultimately induce chronic illness such as heart disease and perhaps even cancer.

This is just one possible outcome to programming new antibodies. I'd also be concerned with how the treatments mitigate any risk to shutting down our own immune system.

Hypothetical speculation: Say the treatment works well while you're taking regular doses of new Immunity 2.0 shots, but as soon as you can't afford to pay anymore, you're off the Immunity 2.0 shots. Well, it's been a while since your real immune system has had to work, so the next mutation of a virus comes along and 'oops'.

Most questions to risk will probably be found in lab research and trials, but it's still something to think about.

Re:Unintended Consequences?

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Don't worry until you hear that Norton is moving into the health insurance business...

Re:Unintended Consequences?

[Patch86]

Move to a country with free healthcare?

Seriously, paying for medicine is so 19th century.

Re:Unintended Consequences?

[maxume]

You need to come up with some better phrasing for that, you are suggesting that back in the 19th century, we had to pay for medicine, rather than having slaves like we do today.

You should probably use 'universal health care' instead of 'free health care', and speak about not charging for it at the point of delivery.

Re:Unintended Consequences?

[vlm]

I'll stick with a doctor who isn't an agent of the government, thanks.

Hmm. No public schools, no govt scholarships, doesn't take medicare patients, no medical license, no business license, doesn't cooperate with the CDC, ... That leaves us with what, one master herbalist in Berkley?

Re:Unintended Consequences?

[samkass]

I'll stick with a doctor who isn't an agent of the government, thanks.

You mean like Canada?

There are a lot of systems by which you can accomplish universal health care. The UK version in which doctors are federal employees is one, but the Canadian system where the federal government is essentially the insurer is another. Another option is the system that the current US reform bill proposes which is very similar to the Republican one from the early 90's. The only really bad option is doing nothing.

Re:Unintended Consequences?

[ultranova]

Well, it's been a while since your real immune system has had to work, so the next mutation of a virus comes along and 'oops'.

Your real immune system is working all the time, fighting more simultaneous and endless wars than the United States. Leave a piece of meat on the table and take note how long it takes before all the bacteria, fungi and insects notice it's there. Now remember that you are made of meat.

You only notice your immune system when something manages to get a foothold, but that doesn't mean that it isn't working at the other times.

Re:Unintended Consequences?

[ColdWetDog]

That leaves us with what, one master herbalist in Berkley?

Nope, she got unemployment pay after being laid off and used that time to go to herbalist school (which got started with a Small Business Administration loan).

Re:Unintended Consequences?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nah, it's not actually so bad. I have eczema which is usually a nuisance but a while back it went nuts and after a few months the doctor prescribed me immune suppressants. Exactly the same ones people with organ transplants use. They worked great. The flare up was my immune system working like mad to kill my skin. Once my immune system was whipped to submission everything was better. I actually caught less colds in that time. So unless they plan on totally turning off the immune system, it'll still be there and capable of doing its job.

Re:Unintended Consequences?

[Dausha]

I'll stick with a doctor who isn't an agent of the government, thanks.

Hmm. No public schools, no govt scholarships, doesn't take medicare patients, no medical license, no business license, doesn't cooperate with the CDC, ... That leaves us with what, one master herbalist in Berkley?

Wow! Like your reply doesn't even approach the GPP, and you got modded up. So, I guess I'll get modded down for what I'm about to say

Being an agent of the government means "a representative or official of a government or administrative department of a government." We're talking somebody who is effectively controlled by the government such that they have an implicit employer/employee relationship.

One does not need to eschew the CDC to avoid being a government agent. Licensing is possible without being a government employee; in fact when is a government employee required to obtain a business license to be a government employee? And, if attendance at a public school (including public post-secondary) makes one a government employee, then a clear majority of our nation is actually not private sector but public.

FWIW, Business and Medical licensing is a product of State Governments. Public education is a product of Statue Governments. Under the U.S. Constitution, there is no enumerated power empowering the Federal Government to be involved in either Education or Medicine. Therefore, pursuant to the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution, the authority falls to the individual States. Massachusetts has public health-care, which is acceptable under the U.S. Constitution. But, the Federal Government usurping their authority is not.

I believe the GPP was complaining that the Federal Government needs to keep its nose out of the medical field.

Re:Unintended Consequences?

[azenpunk]

No. An agent of some entity is specifically one who is acting on their behalf. Having a government issued medical license does not make one an agent of the government, the clerk behind the counter at the licensing agency is the agent of government. Accepting payments from Medicare does not make one an agent of the government, the claim reviewer deciding if a claim is covered by Medicare and then if Medicare should pay out is the agent of government. Cooperation with the CDC does not make one an agent of the government. Allowing the government to dictate the advice one gives as a doctor does make one an agent of the government, as recently was reported in the UK. Doctors were mandated to give advice on lowering patients carbon footprint, such advice is not medical in nature and has no business coming from a doctor unsolicited. What do public schools have to do with a doctor being an agent of government?

Re:Unintended Consequences?

[Anonymous Coward]

The UK version in which doctors are federal employees is one.

Despite the devolution of some governmental responsibilities to local bodies in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, the UK is not a federation and therefore cannot have such a thing as "federal employees".

Re:Unintended Consequences?

[mindfarms]

That is a very valid point. The creation of Products that "require" continued use in the interest of (so called) continued good health is nothing new to the Pharmaceutical Industries. Read the fine print (really fine print) on the tiny hand-out included with most prescribed drugs and you will see what I mean. Most of them point out dangerous and undesirable results if you DISCONTINUE the medication. The Internet Marketing Industry grabbed that concept and introduced it as a New Concept... called Forced Continuity, LOL.

Re:Unintended Consequences?

[mindfarms]

Please send me the names of Doctors you found,both of them.

Re:Unintended Consequences?

[geekoid]

Just like how you need to keep paying for a polio shot every year.

No, wait. Maybe the immune system doesn't work like you think it does?

Re:Unintended Consequences?

[geekoid]

"a representative or official of a government or administrative department of a government."

Yes, and the statement was so stupid it deserved nothing more then ridicule.

Which part of:
"...promote the general Welfare..." do you not understand?

Re:Unintended Consequences?

[exasperation]

The UK version in which doctors are federal employees is one, but the Canadian system where the federal government is essentially the insurer is another.

While you got the general idea right, you got some facts wrong. The UK doesn't have a federal government to begin with, and universal insurance is implemented at the provincial level in Canada, with each province having its own insurance system.

Re:Unintended Consequences?

[XanC]

Citing a reason to create a federal government does not grant powers to that government.

What part of "Preamble" do you not understand?

Re:Unintended Consequences?

[vegiVamp]

I suspect that, similar to how vaccination works, your own immune system will have picked up the trick and continue fighting on it's own. After all, there'll be a whole lot of dead enemies floating about to see how it's done.

Re:Unintended Consequences?

[Urkki]

Move to a country with free healthcare?

Seriously, paying for medicine is so 19th century.

I fear it may turn out to be very 21st century, as well... :-(

Obligatory tag...

[caladine]

whatcouldpossiblygowrong

On a more serious note, this looks promising. I just hope we don't rush into this. The immune system runs a delicate balance, over response is nearly as dangerous as not enough. More research needed.

And then when a new disease cones along ...

[maxwell demon]

And then when a new disease comes along, our immune system is not properly trained, and we'll die.

Remember that the native Americans dies from illnesses which were relatively harmless for the Europeans, because they just didn't have all those illnesses there.

Re:And then when a new disease cones along ...

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

The immune system isn't some kind of muscle, it doesn't really have "strength" in some neatly scalar way(OK, if your T-cell count is completely in the tank, you'd have a case for saying that your immune system is "weak").

You acquire immunity based on exposure to particular agents. If a new disease comes along, your immune system won't be properly trained no matter what you've been doing before. That is what makes it a "new" disease. Plus, the whole point of this approach would be that you could engineer antibodies on demand for the new disease, and take them before it kills you.

The immune system will, given time, almost always come up with antibodies and mount a response; but some conditions will kill you good and hard before you have time to mount that response. This is why vaccines are useful(since they provoke the same or similar response; but are harmless, so your immune system isn't racing against the clock). If you could engineer the antibodies themselves, you could get even faster response, and have something that would work even once you are infected.

It would, essentially, allow you to apply the technique that we currently use in Antivenom agents to diseases generally.

Re:And then when a new disease cones along ...

[mariox19]

I seem to remember reading something that contradicts what you're saying.

As I recall, some scientists are wondering if vaccinating children against chickenpox is having an adverse affect on the adult population who have had chickenpox. Since kids aren't carrying the active virus, adults are exposed to it less. It seems like routine exposure may actually help keep our immune systems primed. The result is, since more immune systems are "out of practice," so to speak, more adults are contracting shingles.

Disclaimer: I have no science background to start with, and I'm recounting this from memory. If I'm wrong, I apologize.

Re:And then when a new disease cones along ...

[maxume]

Yeah, and lots of Europeans still died of all sorts of diseases, right up until vaccines and antibiotics were discovered.

I'd rather have antibiotics and vaccines than be proud of all the exercise my immune system has had. And that is leaving aside the part where no one has ever explained to me why I should view my immune system as a muscle.

Re:And then when a new disease cones along ...

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

You can definitely have "strength" with respect to a particular disease, or class of closely related diseases. That is pretty much how the immune response works. Grandparent seemed to be talking about the case of exposure to one disease, followed by exposure to something entirely different. The "practice" in the case of the first disease would indeed make you more resistant to future occurrences of that one; but wouldn't make a difference in terms of your response to something novel.

Re:And then when a new disease cones along ...

[vlm]

The immune system will, given time, almost always come up with antibodies and mount a response; but some conditions will kill you good and hard before you have time to mount that response.

Occasionally overreacts and kills you by fever, also occasionally gets the peculiar idea that wheat, soy, milk protein is an enemy invader and attacks your stomach wall, like my son (whom is perfectly healthy if he avoids those foods, projectile vomiting otherwise) Even worse is when it gets the idea your own innards are the enemy... I dated a girl in the very early 90s whos mother had Lupus and thats how she described Lupus, since theres some genetic component, they're probably both dead by now, don't know.

So, its not as simple as feed the T-cells the equivalent of a monster energy drink, and explains the interest in proper engineering of a specific response.

Re:And then when a new disease cones along ...

[maxume]

This seems to be what you are talking about:

http://www.news-medical.net/news/2005/09/01/12896.aspx

Re:And then when a new disease cones along ...

[Ihlosi]

Plus, the whole point of this approach would be that you could engineer antibodies on demand for the new disease, and take them before it kills you.

That sounds like passive immunization to me. A really, really old concept.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_immunization

So how is this approach "new"?

Re:And then when a new disease cones along ...

[Chris Burke]

Remember that the native Americans dies from illnesses which were relatively harmless for the Europeans, because they just didn't have all those illnesses there.

And European explorers, all descendants of survivors of the Black Death, died from tropical diseases at rates far higher than the locals, because they didn't have those diseases in Europe.

Vaccines are all about "training" our immune system. But they only work against the disease the vaccine is designed for.

Lazy immune system?

[wrencherd]

I have to ask, b/c I don't know, but could this lead to lazy-, or even more inept immune systems?

Re:Lazy immune system?

[Zerth]

It sounds plausible, if the introduction of the antibody doesn't inform the immune system how to reproduce it in the same fashion that introduction of inert viral proteins does.

If so, it would only be effective until the antibodies degraded/were flushed out.

It would still be useful for improving immune response to diseases that kill quickly or used as a prophylactic when you don't have time to wait after the inoculation before being exposed(e.g. emergency aid workers).

Re:Lazy immune system?

[CyberSaint]

That depends, if you are engineering T-cells from host stem cells there is no reason you couldn't include a small set of memory T-cells to prevent re-infection/'Lazy Immune Systems'. In fact it might be more practical in some cases to do just memory T-cells and let the body do the heavy lifting, since it would give you a wider error margin in terms of dosage.

I for one

[wintercolby]

welcome our new zombie overlords.

Re-Engineering?

[Itninja]

I believe it should be "Re-Randomchanceing the immune system". Remember, something cannot be accidentally engineered. The summary writer is clearly in the pocket of Big I.D. /sarcasm

autoimmunity could be a major side-effect

[bzdyelnik]

If the exogenous antibodies end up hitting the wrong cells in some people, there could be major problems. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autoimmunity Although I would expect that there would be some sort of pre-compatibility test to avoid major complications - but you can't realistically pre-test every cell type via biopsy.

Re:autoimmunity could be a major side-effect

[izomiac]

I agree. Autoimmunity seems like it'll kill this idea unless they take some pretty extreme measures to get around it. Each person is genetically different. There are a lot of potential antigens for an antibody to recognize. With our own immune system there are (imperfect) mechanisms to kill any B or T cell that recognizes something inappropriate. With genetically engineered antibodies, this step is skipped entirely. In fact, I suspect this step is why we don't form natural antibodies to some diseases... especially since our immune cells are obviously capable of doing so in a test tube.

Boy, Howdy!

[overshoot]

If you think that the whack-jobs are ballistic about vaccines, wait they go off the rails for something like this!

Re:Boy, Howdy!

[mcgrew]

They'll only go ballistic if you make it mandatory.

Re:Boy, Howdy!

[ultranova]

If you think that the whack-jobs are ballistic about vaccines, wait they go off the rails for something like this!

So? Then they'll end up dying from illnesses the rest of us are immunized to, which is unfortunate from a humanitarian point of view, but that's their own fault, and at least they'll get some herd protection since everyone around them is unable to pass the disease to them. A pity about their children suffering from their parent's stupidity, but maybe they'll wise up once they grow up.

Then again, with that ballistic tendency, they might find employment in private spaceflight industry as booster rockets ;).

Re:Boy, Howdy!

[Anonymous Coward]

If you think that the whack-jobs are ballistic about vaccines, wait they go off the rails for something like this!

Yeah. Good thing we normal folks are ok with instantly whiping out millions of years of evolution with zero critical thought, because some dude said he's the expert on this stuff.

Re:Boy, Howdy!

[ChromeAeonium]

A pity about their children suffering from their parent's stupidity, but maybe they'll wise up once they grow up.

Alas, not just their own unfortunate kids. Ever read about Dana McCaffery? She was too young to be vaccinated, and she died of pertussis that the anti-vaxxers brought back. Then one of the local pro-disease dumbasses went and said that no one ever died of pertussis.

Re:Boy, Howdy!

[Anonymous Coward]

Antivaccination movement is not the only reason why pertussis has returned.
Acellular vaccine is just ineffective.
http://www.physorg.com/news185011062.html

Similar problem seems to be on rise with Rubella - the infection is atypical and extremely mild in vaccinated children but still keeps virus reservoir intact.

vaccination 2.0

[Alinabi]

So this is, like, vaccination 2.0. Is this a ploy to make vaccination more palatable to the freaks who think vaccines cause autism?

Re:vaccination 2.0

[osu-neko]

So this is, like, vaccination 2.0. Is this a ploy to make vaccination more palatable to the freaks who think vaccines cause autism?

Hah. No. They'll freak out even more about something like this. But it'll improve survivability for the rest of us, enabling natural selection to fix the problem.

Hey, awesome...

[Anonymous Coward]

Lets cure all natural causes of death through the miracle of modern science.
Then starve to death as the world becomes grossly overpopulated.

Re:Hey, awesome...

[maxwell demon]

Lets cure all natural causes of death through the miracle of modern science.
Then starve to death as the world becomes grossly overpopulated.

Don't worry. The human race is so effective at killing each other that most people won't starve anyway.

Re:Hey, awesome...

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Don't worry; thanks to the work of Norman Borlaug and Mikhail Kalashnikov, there are alternatives to mass starvation...

Re:Hey, awesome...

[Anonymous Coward]

Ideally we would solve all of our problems eventually, but if it pains you that much to read articles on progress towards solving one or a couple of problems at a time, give me your email and I'll let you know when they publish "All human problems solved!" so you won't have to read through piddly solutions to things like all disease, ever.

Re:Hey, awesome...

[mcgrew]

People aren't starving for lack of food, it's politics that make people go hungry. As far as overpopulation, there's this thing called "birth control" that the Chinese have been pretty good at mandating in their own country. That book "The Population Bomb" is sadly out of date; according to it, we're all supposed to be dead by now.

Sure is heartwarming that somebody wants people to die so they can have more kids.

Re:Hey, awesome...

[NiteShaed]

I wish I had mod points. I'm glad I don't though, because I'd really be torn between "Funny" and "Insightful"......

Re:Hey, awesome...

[osu-neko]

Lets cure all natural causes of death through the miracle of modern science. Then starve to death as the world becomes grossly overpopulated.

Problem: All evidence suggests the opposite. Eliminate all the most egregious morality concerns from a population, and they stop reproducing like rabbits. In the healthiest parts of the first word, population growth is going negative.

Re:Hey, awesome...

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

I couldn't remember who invented the IUD, so my list was perhaps a touch on the pessimistic side...

Re:Hey, awesome...

[Ghubi]

I think starvation counts as a natural cause of death. Modern science is working on a "cure" for that too.

Re:Hey, awesome...

[Ghubi]

Actually war is not a very effective control on population growth. For instance in World War II 72 million people were killed. That's a lot of people, but still only about 3% of the people who were alive in 1940. In spite of all that killing, population grew by about 8% between 1940 and 1950.

Re:Hey, awesome...

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

It might be fairer to calculate the percentage as a percentage of people alive in combatant countries; but your point is still valid.

Even something like the Rwandan Genocide, considered to have been pretty damn ghastly, has death toll estimates, on the high side, of only around 20% of the country's population(and the population today is substantially higher than the prewar one, the population decline was largely confined to the period of active fighting).

It isn't inconceivable that war could be a general control on population growth, if conditions were dire enough; but the sort of violence that that would entail would be almost unimaginable. You'd basically be talking near-constant moderate-to-high intensity conflict across the world's major population centers. Depending on exactly which years' population growth numbers you base your calculation on, you'd need something on the order of 80 million additional combat deaths, annually just to maintain a stable population. If you wanted an actual reduction, it might be 100.

I know that condoms aren't fun; but I hope that if it came down to "'Less breeding' or 'an entire WWII every single year' choose one." people would make the right decision.

The Professor Should First Read The Patent

[Anonymous Coward]

application for Altermune by Kary Mullis (Oct, 29, 2003)

The professor has been doing too much reading and not enough thinking as Richard Hamming observed.

Yours In Moscow,
Kilgore T.

Ah, hubris.

[neurogeneticist]

So we can't stop our poor dumb natural immune systems from attacking our own bodies, and we're just a few short years away from telling it what to do?

Re:Ah, hubris.

[maxume]

We have had antirejection drugs for decades (but I guess they are rather gross tools, and I concede that they aren't exactly what you are talking about).

Resident Evil

[Anonymous Coward]

This sounds like the plot to Resident Evil.

Too much Sci-fi

[COMON$]

Maybe I have been reading too much sci-fi lately but arent we closer to using nanotech as an immune system than using biological sources?

Re:Too much Sci-fi

[Kjella]

Maybe I have been reading too much sci-fi lately but arent we closer to using nanotech as an immune system than using biological sources?

To actually apply it in the real world you need mass production and while bacteria and viruses have a working means to reproduce nanotech isn't even close. So I think for a long time to come we will manipulate biological sources into producing the antibodies and amino acids and hormones and whatever else we need. Not to mention that if we can manipulate our own DNA to make it "ours" there's much less chance of rejection or reactions to all the foreign elements. It also helps that all the blueprints are also there, imagine if you could trick cells into growing new hearts or livers or kidneys or lungs. Creating an army of nanorobots to build one would be a massive undertaking. There's still extremely much that could be done on the biological side if only we figured out how.

Re:Too much Sci-fi

[COMON$]

Ya I was just thinking that our robotics tech was more advanced than our understanding of biology. Creating a series of nanobots that repaired telomeres and attacked foreign items seems simpler than revamping an entire immune system. Not that we shouldn't keep advancing our understanding of biology but our immune systems have been working on getting where they are for a very long time. It might not be wise to mess with that.

Re:Too much Sci-fi

[Anonymous Coward]

It's possible you could make a convincing argument that our robotics tech is more advanced than our _understanding_ of biology, but there's no way that our robotics tech is more advanced than biology itself. An important distinction in my opinion. Except for some uses in surgery and diagnostic devices, robotics still doesn't have much place in medicine. Biology and manipulation of same still has a lot more uses in medicine than robotics.

Re:Too much Sci-fi

[Anonymous Coward]

Engineering Anti-Bodies for a specific purpose is more or less nanotechnology.

Re:Too much Sci-fi

[COMON$]

I definately agree with you on robotics not being as advanced as biology itself. However, robotics has a large place in medicine, they just don't do as good of a job as the original part in the aspect of prosthesis or an insulin drip doesn't work as well as going au natural. We also have a variety of other items we stick in our bodies to help us function when our body fails us. But yes, the organism is an insanely complex amazing thing.

Within decades?

[MathiasRav]

xkcd:678

Star Trek did it

[0racle]

Wasn't there a Star Trek: TNG episode where they did this? Remember how everyone who wasn't engineered was dying?

Na, that'll never happen.

Re:Star Trek did it

[Anonymous Coward]

One of the earlier episodes, before Bev was the head doc. The anti-bodies the engineered were creating were killing those in the presense of them. In the end, they save the doc by filtering her through a transporter, using hair from her brush as pattern DNA to repair the damage.

Re:Star Trek did it

[jburroug]

Yes they did But no one remembers because it was a Dr. Pulaski episode.

auto immune system response

[MrKaos]

Hey wouldn't it be great if our bodies did this automatically...

I thought we alerady could

[scorp1us]

As someone who is allergic to nearly everything, I've taken a keen interest in the immune system.

I read something a while ago that said allergies and even things like nervous tics could be inherited from a blood transfusion. The idea is that along with the blood cells, you get the donor's white blood cells and antibodies, which then teach your own white blood cells how to make the antibodies, so you wind up with their allergies. It also said that some nervous system things like tics could also be inherited the same way. So it would seem we already have what the article is talking about.

Re:I thought we alerady could

[osu-neko]

...from a blood transfusion. ... So it would seem we already have what the article is talking about.

Really? How often do people get a transfusion of lab-created, genetically engineered blood? If the answer is "never", then I fail to see how we already have what the article is talking about.

Re:I thought we alerady could

[orkysoft]

Isn't blood filtered before it is transfused?

Re:I thought we alerady could

[pclminion]

Isn't blood filtered before it is transfused?

I don't know, but what I do know is that a red blood cell is a hell of a lot bigger than a virus or an antibody. So if you filter out those, you filter out the red blood cells. That would not be a terribly useful material for blood transfusion.

Re:I thought we alerady could

[scorp1us]

The idea isn't that it has to be lab-created, you could take the blood of people who have the antibodies, for whatever immunities you want (and match your blood type) then release them in your own system.

Less precise, and more risky, but its the same deal.

They're not all "whack-jobs"...

[MillionthMonkey]

Have you ever had a former Playboy Bunny in bed with you? I'd bet you'd go off the rails yourself to keep that going.

Re:I was under...

[sonnejw0]

I'm a Biologist, and you're somewhat mistaken. Antibodies are so infinitesimally tiny that no light microscope can possibly see them, even compared to virii which are also fairly invisible under a microscope. Antibodies are easy to detect, however, because they have a constant region on their tail end, which we know how to identify. We have compounds that bind to that constant tail end and as a result tag the antibody and what it is binding to. It's like the antibody is a flag pole, and biologists can run a colorful flag up that pole when we want to see what piece of the ground the flag pole is attached to.

Engineering antibodies is a simple matter, it's the basis of immunization/vaccination. Traditionally, we give chopped up bacteria and virii to a patient and their immune system detects those and creates more antibodies to put into the blood stream to stave off future infection. With this approach, instead we feed immune cells in a Petri dish an antigen, and they produce antibodies specific to that antigen. We can separate out these antibodies and purify them because they have that constant tail region that we can detect. We can then inject these into a person and these antibodies will cling to whatever thing they've been engineered to detect and attract the native immune system to it.

We can also use genetic engineering tricks to produce en masse a single specific kind of antibody. The technology has been there for research labs for decades. Either method will work fairly similarly, but in my opinion the former seems "easier", because we let the cells sort out what specific antibody to make. If we genetically engineer immune cells, we have to know exactly what gene sequence will produce an antibody targetting exactly what we want targetted ... which is good if we know what the antibody gene sequence is already, but difficult to figure out on our own. Nature is much more efficient (and cost effective) at that kind of thing. Once we let nature figure out what's best, we can just figure out the gene sequence from there to mass produce the antibody.

I had doctors who were agents of the gov't...

[sean.peters]

... for 20 years. They were called "Navy doctors". They had all the latest technology, were extremely skilled, and... free. Of course, taxpayer dollars were paying them, but 1) total costs per person in the military are a hell of a lot less than the mess we have going on in the world of private health insurance, and 2) for the cost of something like the Iraq war, we could have provided health coverage for the entire country for like 15 years. So it's not like we can't afford it.

People who bitch about "socialized medicine" should try it some time.

Re:I had doctors who were agents of the gov't...

[vlm]

2) for the cost of something like the Iraq war, we could have provided health coverage for the entire country for like 15 years.

Therein lies the problem with the American sicknesscare system. As long as anyone in the system makes money off it, once they know you're willing to pay "one Iraq war per 15 year" they'll simply extort "two Iraq wars per 15 years" and they'll get it too, because no one wants to die.

Look at the education bubble. The more money the govt provides for education, the higher the price charged. Anywhere the govt kicks in money, the prices will rise.

Re:I had doctors who were agents of the gov't...

[TubeSteak]

... for 20 years. They were called "Navy doctors". They had all the latest technology, were extremely skilled, and... free. Of course, taxpayer dollars were paying them, but 1) total costs per person in the military are a hell of a lot less than the mess we have going on in the world of private health insurance

That's because the military generally spends ~1 million training up a soldier.
Even in the Vietnam era, when you consider how much the government has already spent on a soldier, top flight medical care makes perfect sense to protect that investment.
Nowadays, the gov't spends more on training a soldier than most people will make in their entire lives.

Re:I had doctors who were agents of the gov't...

[azenpunk]

Except private medical care was very cheap until government got involved. Anyone who has been involved with medicine, especially billing, since before Medicare will tell you how the rise in the cost of medicine has been driven by Medicare.

Socialized medicine is not going to give everyone a "Navy Doctor." In fact your Navy Doctors may just highlight one of the problems with socialized medicine. It took taxes taken from 150 million to 200 million people or so (over the course of your full service) to provide excellent medical care for, what? 455 682, (active duty plus reserve)? If that same revenue had to provide medical care for the same 200 million people, the quality would drop or the system would go bankrupt, which is what i have heard reported is slowly happening to the UK and Canada. I remember a report from last year on Canada having to privatize a small portion of it's medical industry for budgeting concerns. I think it had to do with pharmacies and prescriptions. Norway pays for their medical coverage through government owned fossil fuel deposits.

The mess we have going on in the world of private health insurance was actually caused in large part by the involvement of Medicare, as many people who have been involved with medical billing since before Medicare will tell you.

Lastly, the 'socialized medicine' bills that have been proposed in the US so far, are absolutely horrible. Even if socialized medicine could work better than anything else, none of the bills that have been involved in the debates in the last year would give us such a system. I have read articles from 3 or 4 different people who have actually read the bills in their entirety, from lawyers to doctors, and the bills we have had to choose from would utterly destroy medicine in this country as well as make massive end-runs around the 4th amendment.

It is not governments function to take care of it's people. In fact it has been shown time and time again that attempts by the federal government to do so have caused more harm to our society than they have prevented from federal aid for disaster areas to medical coverage to education. It's not good to be dependent upon your government, eventually that becomes an avenue of control.

Re:I had doctors who were agents of the gov't...

[Anonymous Coward]

1) You're freaking dreaming. People in the military work for cents on the hour.... you're not going to find real world doctors that will work for that pay.

2) The healthcare system in this country is an overbloated mess of insurance and prescription pill madness... The cost of the Iraq war wouldn't even begin to cover what's necessary to fix it.

Socialized medicine?

Do you even KNOW what rights have been stolen from you that have created this cesspool you're championing 'Socialized Medicine' to get us out of?

The constitution was designed to PROTECT your rights.... The rights that you should be free to enjoy because you are a human being. The Constitution was not designed to GIVE your rights.

Educate Yourself!
http://www.archive.org/details/Michael_Badnarik

Re:I had doctors who were agents of the gov't...

[OrigamiMarie]

Hmmm except for some little issues:

* Of course healthcare costs are cheap for healthy, active young adults. There is a serious sampling bias to those statistics. When you're not healthy and young anymore, you end up in another insurance system (random insurance company, or the VA -- which makes regular headlines about their huge costs and uneven quality).
* I got Navy health care when I was an infant. They delayed giving me the expensive, high-tech (yes, MRI) brain scan until I was nearly dead. It was cheaper and easier to blame my mom for my not eating, since she's the sort to not keep on weight. After the diagnosis, it was off to a non-Navy hospital for surgery and bills that bankrupted my parents.

There Are No Words

[HTH NE1]

Just don't make the new immunity cells so aggressive that they escape the body and start to eat the ink off of the all books in the world.

Ounce/Pound

[overshoot]

Rather than merely hoping that the vaccine will indirectly lead to the antibody an individual needs, imagine if we could genetically engineer these antibodies and make them available as needed?

Just guessing, mind, but maybe because prevention has advantages over cures?

Link

[scorp1us]

http://www.archivesofpathology.org/doi/full/10.1043/0003-9985%282003%29127%3C0316%3AATR%3E2.0.CO%3B2

See the COMMENT section.

Slashdot immunity

[MillionthMonkey]

I'm going to get whooshed for replying to that, but they do, except when diseases kill us faster than we can replenish our pool of Slashdotty sarcastic contrarian commenters.

Sounds useful

[T Murphy]

I'll take some antibodies for meatloaf, that way Aunt Mary's "specialty" causes an immune response and I can claim to be allergic.

Aren't there a ton of health problems

[Phizzle]

that are caused by the antibodies?

The reminds me of a science-fiction novel

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll leave it to your imagination how *that* turned out.

Re:I was under...

[Anonymous Coward]

> I'm a Biologist

> virii

So it's the biologists who are screwing up this beautiful language! The enemy is within the gates!

Herd immunity

[overshoot]

Ever read about Dana McCaffery? [danamccaffery.com] She was too young to be vaccinated, and she died of pertussis that the anti-vaxxers brought back.

To be fair, pertussis is an environmental bacterium and is pretty common in adults -- it doesn't need anti-vaxx (aka "pro-disease") loons to "bring [i] back."

Not so measles -- that's one we could actually send off to join smallpox in the annals of extinct pathogenic viruses. Or we could, if it weren't for people like Andrew Wakefield, who saw a chance to make some money by killing children in the UK. Thus we have babies too young to be vaccinated contracting measles in their paediatricians' waiting rooms because somebody took their unvaccinated darlings to Switzerland and when they came back the little darlings came down sick. http://www.jennymccarthybodycount.com/Jenny_McCarthy_Body_Count/Home.html

this could be the cure..

[formfeed]

.. for girl germs!
Otherwise, I don't know, why it would be posted on /.

ABs are not everything

[Corson]

Antibodies are only one and not the most important component of the immune reaction against viruses. T-cells are more important and less easy to... engineer, in this sense.

Hell, that's what our immune system does already

[NotSoHeavyD3]

From what I remember in a cell bio class the B-Cells arn't programmed to make any specific antibody at first.(They're naive) When a new molecule shows up in the body some of those cells will edit their DNA to produce a specific antibody to that antigen. The ones that don't really match well die off and the ones that have editted their DNA to produce a good match live on to produce that antibody. If I remember right that process is kind of random so it takes quite a few naive B-Cells before one of them edits their DNA to make a good match. You could skip this step by having someone do the editting of the B-Cell by "hand" so to speak.

Re:I was under...

[Anonymous Coward]

No biologist worth a dollar would ever say virii. It's viruses, damn it!!

If you are talking about the recent US 'debate'

[geekoid]

Really? REALLY? I hope you don't buy into the redrick.

Read the damn bill. At no point would your doctor work for the government.

Agent of the government, what a bunch of crap.
Also, Obama will take your guns away, and use them to shoot the elderly while leading a black takeover of the country and then force you to ride a bicycle in the rain.

Holy Cow!

[Anonymous Coward]

I read this:

Rather than merely hoping that the vaccine will indirectly lead to the antibody an individual needs, imagine if we could genetically engineer these antibodies and make them available as needed?

...and immediately went, "Yeah, and can you imagine how much that will cost you to get, let alone develop!" Let's pray we end these wars and get a public option in the U.S., because otherwise only the rich a-holes like Rush Limbaugh will survive with Keith Richards and the cockroaches!

Anti-virus

[mitoyarzun]

It's all good until the 30-day trial period ends and they start showing popups...

Erasing immunity information

[Anonymous Coward]

One of the most interesting questions is how the immune system stores its information, and how we can erase it. If we can get the immune system to forget, we can cure allergies, arthritis, and many diseases caused by the immune system attacking one's own body.

Glanding

[FreakyGreenLeaky]

Reminds me of the folks in The Culture, need to stay awake, relieve pain, fall asleep, be happy, be sad, need energy, be calm, get high, get really high, fight disease, etc, simply gland it - a neural implant ("lace") can release whatever chemical you want/need... wonderful stuff.

Pay up or peg out

[dugeen]

This nightmare is like GM crops, but ten times worse. It's one thing to put agriculture entirely in the hands of US corporations, but giving them control over our immune systems could be described as foolish. I think it would be simpler to cut out the middleman by committing suicide immediately.

Hey losertarians and wingnuts

[jhylkema]

From TFA:

Caltech scientists have already engineered stem cells into B cells that produce HIV-fighting antibodies -- and an NIH researcher engineered T cells that recognize tumors which has already had promising clinical trials again skin cancer.

Now, say again please, all after your oh-so-tired anti-government rants?

Neodarwinism

[PeterWone]

People with enhanced immune systems will run around cheerfully breathing pathogens on people who can't survive them. For once there is a strong and direct correlation between intelligence and chance of survival.

Hi Everybody

[nokyx]

Hi Dr. Nick!

Re:I was under the impression (instant godwin)

[ckaminski]

Imagine what Hitler would have done with a tool like this...