Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Nanoparticle Completely Eradicates Hepatitis C Virus

Posted by timothy on from the except-for-the-few-I-take-home-to-experiment dept.

Diggester writes "While Americans worry every year about getting a flu shot or preventing HIV/AIDS, the deadlier silent killer is actually Hepatitis C, killing over 15,000 people yearly in the U.S. since 2007 — and the numbers continue to increase as the carriers increase in age. While there is no vaccine, there is hope in nanoparticle technology. The breakthrough came from a group of researchers at the University of Florida, creating a 'nanozyme' that eliminates the Hep C 100% of the time; before now, the six-month treatment would only work about half the time. The particles are coated with two biological agents, the identifier and the destroyer; the identifier recognizes the virus and sends the destroyer off to eliminate the mRNA which allows Hep C to replicate." Reader Joiseybill adds a link to coverage in the IEEE Spectrum, and points out that the 100 percent success rate, while encouraging, is so far only in the lab.

14 of 104 comments (clear)

  1. Deadlier? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    "While Americans worry every year about getting a flu shot or preventing HIV/AIDS, the deadlier silent killer is actually Hepatitis C, killing over 15,000 ..."

    The flu kills each year an average number of 25000-36000 people in the US, depending on the statistics.
    http://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/disease/us_flu-related_deaths.htm

    1. Re:Deadlier? by ketamine-bp · · Score: 5, Informative

      the deal with these is that flu, pneumonia and perhaps urinary tract infection is almost always the presentation of the patient in the death episode. it's not fair comparing it to flu. Among those who died of flu, it is rather rare to find a person who enjoyed relatively good past health and is young.

      Hepatitis C (and hepatitis B), on the other hand, leads to cirrhosis, hepatocellular cellular carcinoma and liver failure. It is exactly one of those diseases which will cause deterioration of the patient's health to such extent that a flu could kill.

      It is rather unfair to compare Hep C to Flu in terms of mortality.

    2. Re:Deadlier? by Nyder · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "While Americans worry every year about getting a flu shot or preventing HIV/AIDS, the deadlier silent killer is actually Hepatitis C, killing over 15,000 ..."

      The flu kills each year an average number of 25000-36000 people in the US, depending on the statistics.
      http://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/disease/us_flu-related_deaths.htm

      the flu kills more then terrorist, yet we spend more money defending against terrorist.

      wtf?

      --
      Be seeing you...
    3. Re:Deadlier? by durrr · · Score: 4, Informative

      Hepatitis viral infections are also not self-limiting, hep C is pretty ugly too in that it limits transplant options(read; hep c = no transplants for you) which can be a pretty shitty situation for kidney transplant candidates that can get infected by dialysis catethers and whatnot and be excluded from the queue.

      Hep B is pretty nasty too, hard to treat, survives well in the outside environment and about as virulent as a cat video on youtube.

  2. Easy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    the 100 percent success rate, while encouraging, is so far only in the lab

    So take everyone to the lab for treatment. Duh.

    1. Re:Easy by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 4, Funny

      Only if you're at risk. As this is a sexually transmitted disease and this is Slashdot...

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    2. Re:Easy by robably · · Score: 4, Insightful

      why are we worried about this if the only ones who will really benefit are drug users?

      What a cunt. They're human beings.

      You think people who take drugs don't deserve to live? Fine. Go and live in a world without all the music, books and films created by drug users. No more Rolling Stones for you. No more Burroughs. No more Blake or Shelley. No Hunter S Thompson. No Carl Sagan. None of the beauty and insights and technical leaps forward that people who take drugs have given the world.

      In fact, no more computers for you. Piss off.

  3. mice or men by mynamestolen · · Score: 5, Funny

    would have been nice for mice to be mentioned in the summary since it appears only to apply to them. lucky dogs

    --
    work in progress
  4. It is wonderful, but it's only in mice by ketamine-bp · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Well, there are more than a hundred discoveries like these that demonstrated effectiveness of curing the uncurables in the past decade. Of those which went through the testing in man, well, maybe 2 or 3...

    Back then, avastin, glivec and so on were expected to be magical cures for cancers.. now they exist only as expensive life-prolonging (with or without quality) therapy and only for those who are rich.

  5. Re:100% ?!?! by TummyX · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Duh. The test on rats so far showed no side-effects which makes it better than radiation or incinerating the rats to kill the virus.

  6. Re:100% ?!?! by SJHillman · · Score: 4, Funny

    But it uses the word "nano" so it must work.

  7. Success Rate by kjshark · · Score: 5, Informative

    The previous treatment with ribavirin and interferon for one year had a 50% success rate. The newer six month treatment with the addition of Incivek for three months has over 75% rate. Since Incivek has only been on the market for about a year, that success rate is not as precise as it will be.

    --
    The difference between truth and fiction is that fiction has to be plausible.
  8. Next up... by Jahava · · Score: 4, Funny

    Hepatitis C++? Hepatitis C#?

    Objective Hepatitis C. *shudders*

  9. Re:A cure will never be FDA approved by durrr · · Score: 4, Funny

    Dress up like a horse and go to a vet and you can get gene therapy and stem cells treatments.