Breakthrough Portends Cure For the Common Cold

breadboy21 writes with this excerpt from the Independent: "Scientists have been able to show for the first time that the body's immune defenses can destroy the common cold virus after it has actually invaded the inner sanctum of a human cell, a feat that was believed until now to be impossible. The discovery opens the door to the development of a new class of antiviral drugs that work by enhancing this natural virus-killing machinery of the cell. Scientists believe the first clinical trials of new drugs based on the findings could begin within two to five years."

Comments

Stunning Research by Dr. Strangelove

[eldavojohn]

But studies at the Medical Research Council's laboratory have found that the antibodies produced by the immune system, which recognise and attack invading viruses, actually ride piggyback into the inside of a cell with the invading virus.

Yes but these 'Slim Pickens' antibodies are often regarded as clinically insane by the others that watch in confusion as the suicidal antibody hoots and hollers, waiving its antibody cowboy hat around as the virus blasts them both into the cell.

Re:Stunning Research by Dr. Strangelove

[chichilalescu]

don't worry. in real life, we have both will smith and bruce willis to save humanity. unless chuck norris gets angry with them being more famous or something.

Two to five YEARS???

[MrHanky]

My cold will be over by then.

Re:Two to five YEARS???

[Albanach]

hope you'll be holding onto that cold for a while

Actually, I'll be out exercising.

Re:Two to five YEARS???

[RMH101]

I hear what you're saying, but it's not really the case. Take first-into-man, Phase 1 Clinical Trials. I've implemented systems to control this and have a bit of experience - at this phase, you're not testing the efficacy of the drug, you're testing how it's affecting vital signs - i.e. you're not trying to cure people, you're seeing at what doseage it has any effect on lung function, or heart rate, or temperature etc. This is a long and complex process tested on healthy volunteers - you can't afford to miss an effect that may be disasterous at a later stage. An example of this might be any drug that affects the Q-T rhythm of the heart, as regardless of how clinically effective such a drug might be it will have such a negative effect just due to this one effect on the heart that it's better the candidate drug is killed early before going up the logarithmic scale of cost and patient numbers in Phase 2, 3 and 4 trials.
Plain stats give you an idea of the number of healthy volunteers you need at this stage, and the time it's going to take to statistically prove that the results you've got are conclusive before going to the next level.
Between each phase there'll be long review, ethics boards, etc. Bear in mind that for every successful drug there are going to be hundreds or thousands of candidate drugs which didn't make it.
In short, you can criticise the FDA for some things, but they serve a vital purpose which is ensuring to as high a level as possible that the drugs that are approved are both safe and effective.
The fact that a drug has passed FDA approval does not shield the Pharma company that made it from any liability - this is a common misconception that is categorically not true.
In terms of the common cold, I'd kind of agree with you but I'd also say that once the mechanism for defeating the cold is understood it'll almost certainly give us the ability to treat a lot of more critical illnesses than we currently can - there's no reason not to research into it, anyway.
All pharma companies are trying like mad to shorten the 8-12 year process of taking a drug to market - they'd be mad if they didn't just from a commercial point of view - the length it takes is indicative of effort required.

This is fantastic news!

[i_ate_god]

I look forward to seeing how this annoyance will evolve into a serious threat

Re:This is fantastic news!

[TheRaven64]

I wonder however how many flu symptoms are the effect of your body's defenses, and whether any of them will be worsened by such a drug

The cytokine storm that causes fatalities with some influenza variants is due (roughly speaking) to the body breaking down the virus too quickly, swamping its ability to dispose of the byproducts. This looks like it would cause your body to break down the virus faster, which could be problematic.

Re:This is fantastic news!

[Farmer Tim]

Don't hold your breath expecting a quick, simple and over the counter cure.

Holding your breath is a quick, simple cure, as long as you can do it long enough.

Re:This is fantastic news!

[PseudonymousBraveguy]

None of them are going to cure you in a finger-snap.

"The average cold lasts seven days, but if you take this drug it will be over in a week"

Re:This is fantastic news!

[Taibhsear]

This isn't like antibiotics though. This is a naturally occurring chemical that your body produces. The human body has been fighting colds for ages and they haven't evolved into a serious threat, nor will it. It's key to survival is the fact that it doesn't kill you. That way it can spread and infect more people, thus insuring its survival. However, that said, what effects throwing in an excess of antibodies that your body would normally produce does to the immune response over time is another question entirely. Could the body come to assume there was a magical load of antibodies going to come on its own (the drug) and decide not to waste the resources to make any of its own anymore? That's more my worry. (sort of like how a certain type of diabetes is induced rather than genetic)

Re:This is fantastic news!

[Farmer Tim]

Shh! If I can convince enough stupid people this actually works I could make the world a better place.

Re:This is fantastic news!

[sackvillian]

Right, but there's a distinction between destroying the virus itself, and destroying infected cells. The old dogma was, from the TFA:

"In any immunology textbook you will read that once a virus makes it into a cell, that is game over because the cell is now infected. At that point there is nothing the immune response can do other than kill that cell," said Leo James, who led the research team.

But they showed a mechanism by which the body's cells can destroy the virus before the cell becomes controlled by the virus but after the virus has entered the cell. This is quite unprecedented as it allows that cell to recover, and therefore reduces the need for the immune system to have to launch attacks on our own cells, as occurs in a normal immune response and becomes uncontrolled in a cytokine storm.

In other words, this looks promising!

Drawback to curing the common cold

[dkleinsc]

We reduce the number of ways we can defend against Martian war machines.

2 - 5 years

[mtinsley]

http://xkcd.com/678/

Re:NO!

[TheRaven64]

Nice rant. No, actually, completely irrelevant rant. This research shows how your body breaks down viruses and provides a potential means of stimulating this response. If anything, it makes it harder for viruses to adapt, because they're faced with exactly the same defence mechanism as without this boost, it's just more powerful so they are destroyed faster and have less time to adapt.

Totally wrong

[Toe, The]

No, no, no, no, no. This is just silly.

I have seen several Star Trek episodes where they emphatically pointed out that they had never found a cure for the common cold. So how could there be one in the mere 21st century? Idiots.

Transporters that can reverse the aging process? Sure. (Though somehow they repeatedly forget this and continue to die of old age.) A cure for most every disease except the common cold? Sure! But a cure for the common cold itself? Impossible!

completely wrong way to think about colds

[circletimessquare]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/05/opinion/05ackerman.html

i just read this last month

the common cold is an immune system overreaction. the virus does not cause the cold, our own bodies overreact to the cold, and that causes ALL symptoms. which explains why cold medicines work: they modulate the immune response, they don't actually fight the virus

But, as medical science has realized over the past few decades, the most prevalent cold viruses in fact do little direct harm to our cells. In one experiment in 1984, researchers at the University of Copenhagen performed biopsies on nasal tissue taken from people suffering severe colds, then did the same after the subjects had recovered. To the scientists’ surprise, none of the samples showed any sign of damage to the nasal tissue. Further vindicating the viruses themselves was another study around the same time showing that rhinoviruses infect only a small number of cells lining the nasal passages.

so the virus comes in, borrows some cellular machinery for a few days, makes a few copies, and then leaves. our body's response is to call out the entirety of the navy, the marines, the army, the air force, the cavalry, mortar batteries, drone predators, and tactical nuclear strikes. for a crime which amounts to a homeless guy squatting in an unused home for a day or two

Re:completely wrong way to think about colds

[Colonel Korn]

All the steroids are doing is suppressing your immune system. This is not a cure you are simply treating the symptoms and depending on how severe the infection is, may be the worst possible thing you can do.

You might want to notice or respond to your GP, which argued fairly clearly that the only things worth treating in a cold are the symptoms.

Ironic

[FlyByPC]

...So now we'll be able to cure the common cold, but can't put a man on the Moon (anymore)?

Misleading in Title and Content

[littlewink]

They're not promising a cure for the common cold and they are only speaking of the possibility of some future antiviral drugs.

Medical researchers should be required to keep their yap shut until they produce something that works in humans. For decades I've read thousands (probably tens of thousands) of science articles that promised medical cures. Yet in that time only a handful were produced. Medical science today is little more than a money machine for researchers. I doubt that the investment is worthwhile.

Where's a cure for cancer, for diabetes, for heart disease? Nowhere to be found in the USA.

Re:NO!

[atdt1991]

It's possible that there is a good reason why that mechanism is not already more powerful.

This is completely blind speculation. It's also possible, using similar blind speculation, that this pathway is the virus panacea we've been waiting for, and that it will ultimately prove to be the death of all human-susceptible viruses ever. Take THAT, HIV!

Re:NO!

[GreatBunzinni]

Nice rant. No, actually, completely irrelevant rant. This research shows how your body breaks down viruses and provides a potential means of stimulating this response. If anything, it makes it harder for viruses to adapt, because they're faced with exactly the same defence mechanism as without this boost, it's just more powerful so they are destroyed faster and have less time to adapt.

You tried to label a comment as "completely irrelevant" but still you demonstrate you fail to understand the basic aspects pertaining to evolution. The thing is, "making it harder to adapt" does not, nor it can ever mean "making it impossible to adapt". They will adapt. It will only take a single virus to survive a stimulated response for it to replicate and propagate. With all the other unadapted virus out of the picture, the replicas of the adapted virus will in essence have an entire ecosystem at their disposal, where they will freely propagate, infect and replicate. Your poor understanding of this subject is what lead incompetent health officials and irresponsible patients to contribute to the development of the so called superbugs, which are no laughing matter.

But hey, keep spewing uneducated drivel and accuse those who demonstrate a better understanding of the subject as making "completely irrelevant rants". Meanwhile nature does work in spite of your lack of understanding.

Re:NO!

[Jayemji]

That reason could be that the metabolic expense is too high for someone who lives off 1000 Calories a day. Not really a problem for most 1st world folks nowadays...

Re:NO!

[LateArthurDent]

Nice rant. No, actually, completely irrelevant rant. This research shows how your body breaks down viruses and provides a potential means of stimulating this response. If anything, it makes it harder for viruses to adapt, because they're faced with exactly the same defence mechanism as without this boost, it's just more powerful so they are destroyed faster and have less time to adapt.

You tried to label a comment as "completely irrelevant" but still you demonstrate you fail to understand the basic aspects pertaining to evolution. The thing is, "making it harder to adapt" does not, nor it can ever mean "making it impossible to adapt". They will adapt. It will only take a single virus to survive a stimulated response for it to replicate and propagate. With all the other unadapted virus out of the picture, the replicas of the adapted virus will in essence have an entire ecosystem at their disposal, where they will freely propagate, infect and replicate. Your poor understanding of this subject is what lead incompetent health officials and irresponsible patients to contribute to the development of the so called superbugs, which are no laughing matter.

But hey, keep spewing uneducated drivel and accuse those who demonstrate a better understanding of the subject as making "completely irrelevant rants". Meanwhile nature does work in spite of your lack of understanding.

Actually, in this case, the person you're replying to is right. If the stimulated response is causing your body to use the exact same method of attack against the viruses, but just cause it to act faster, than it is lowering the chance for the virus to adapt. After all, the ones who are susceptible to the immune system response are already being killed by this response, and are getting a greater number of generations in which to develop a mutation that might make them more resistant to it. If you can make the immune system kill them faster using the same method, then yes, they could still adapt, but now you're giving them less time to do it. Assuming it's even possible for them to develop a mutation that can stop it, which is not necessarily a given.