• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo

New anti-virus drug that targets MOST viruses


  • Please log in to reply
26 replies to this topic

#1 TheFountain

  • Guest
  • 5,362 posts
  • 257

Posted 12 August 2011 - 12:41 AM


Todd H. Rider*, Christina E. Zook, Tara L. Boettcher, Scott T. Wick, Jennifer S. Pancoast, Benjamin D. Zusman

Lincoln Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Lexington, Massachusetts, United States of America
Abstract Top

Currently there are relatively few antiviral therapeutics, and most which do exist are highly pathogen-specific or have other disadvantages. We have developed a new broad-spectrum antiviral approach, dubbed Double-stranded RNA (dsRNA) Activated Caspase Oligomerizer (DRACO) that selectively induces apoptosis in cells containing viral dsRNA, rapidly killing infected cells without harming uninfected cells. We have created DRACOs and shown that they are nontoxic in 11 mammalian cell types and effective against 15 different viruses, including dengue flavivirus, Amapari and Tacaribe arenaviruses, Guama bunyavirus, and H1N1 influenza. We have also demonstrated that DRACOs can rescue mice challenged with H1N1 influenza. DRACOs have the potential to be effective therapeutics or prophylactics for numerous clinical and priority viruses, due to the broad-spectrum sensitivity of the dsRNA detection domain, the potent activity of the apoptosis induction domain, and the novel direct linkage between the two which viruses have never encountered.

Citation: Rider TH, Zook CE, Boettcher TL, Wick ST, Pancoast JS, et al. (2011) Broad-Spectrum Antiviral Therapeutics. PLoS ONE 6(7): e22572. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0022572

Editor: Suryaprakash Sambhara, Center for Disease Control and Prevention, United States of America

Received: May 20, 2011; Accepted: June 24, 2011; Published: July 27, 2011

Copyright: © 2011 Rider et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Funding: This work is funded by grant AI057159 (http://www.niaid.nih.gov/Pages/default.a​spx) from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the New England Regional Center of Excellence for Biodefense and Emerging Infectious Diseases, with previous funding from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, Defense Threat Reduction Agency, and Director of Defense Research & Engineering. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Opinions, interpretations, conclusions, and recommendations are those of the authors and are not necessarily endorsed by the United States government.

Competing interests: THR is the inventor on patents and patent applications covering DRACOs: Rider TH (issued October 24, 2006) Anti-pathogen treatments. U.S. Patent 7,125,839; Rider TH (issued July 28, 2009) Anti-pathogen treatments. U.S. Patent 7,566,694; Rider TH (filed June 18, 2009) Anti-Pathogen Treatments. U.S. Patent Application 20100098680; Rider TH (filed February 7, 2003) Anti-Pathogen Treatments. European Patent Application 03716001.7; Rider TH (filed February 7, 2003) Anti-Pathogen Treatments. Canadian Patent Application 2,475,247; Rider TH (filed February 7, 2003) Anti-Pathogen Treatments. Patent Cooperation Treaty Serial No. US03/03978; Rider TH (filed February 7, 2003) Anti-Pathogen Treatments. Japanese Patent Application 2003565429; Rider TH (filed November 19, 2009) Anti-Pathogen Treatments. Japanese Patent Application 2009262426. This does not alter the authors' adherence to all the PLoS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

* E-mail: thor@LL.MIT.EDU
Introduction Top

A serious threat is posed by viral pathogens, including clinical viruses (HIV, hepatitis viruses, etc.), natural emerging viruses (avian and swine influenza strains, SARS, etc.), and viruses relevant to potential bioterrorism (Ebola, smallpox, etc.). Unfortunately, there are relatively few prophylactics or therapeutics for these viruses, and most which do exist can be divided into three broad categories [1]–[3]: (1) Specific inhibitors of a virus-associated target (e.g., HIV protease inhibitors, RNAi) generally must be developed for each virus or viral strain, are prone to resistance if a virus mutates the drug target, are not immediately available for emerging or engineered viral threats, and can have unforeseen adverse effects. (2) Vaccines also require a new vaccine to be developed for each virus or viral strain, must be administered before or in some cases soon after exposure to be effective, are not immediately available for emerging or engineered viral threats, can have unforeseen adverse effects, and are difficult to produce for certain pathogens (e.g., HIV). (3) Interferons and other pro- or anti-inflammatories are less virus-specific, but still are only useful against certain viruses, and they can have serious adverse effects through their interactions with the immune and endocrine systems.

To overcome these shortcomings of existing approaches, we have developed and demonstrated a novel antiviral approach that is effective against a very broad spectrum of viruses, nontoxic in vitro and in vivo, and potentially suitable for either prophylactic or therapeutic administration. Our approach, which we call a Double-stranded RNA (dsRNA) Activated Caspase Oligomerizer (DRACO), is designed to selectively and rapidly kill virus-infected cells while not harming uninfected cells.

Our DRACO approach combines two natural cellular processes. The first process involves dsRNA detection in the interferon pathway. Most viruses have double- or single-stranded RNA (ssRNA) genomes and produce long dsRNA helices during transcription and replication; the remainder of viruses have DNA genomes and typically produce long dsRNA via symmetrical transcription [4]–[5]. In contrast, uninfected mammalian cells generally do not produce long dsRNA (greater than ~21–23 base pairs) [4]–[5]. Natural cellular defenses exploit this difference in order to detect and to attempt to counter viral infections [6]–[7]. For example, protein kinase R (PKR) contains an N-terminal domain with two dsRNA binding motifs (dsRBM 1 and 2) and a C-terminal kinase domain [8]–[9]. Binding of multiple PKR proteins to dsRNA with a length of at least 30–50 base pairs [5] activates the PKRs via trans-autophosphorylation; activated PKR then phosphorylates eIF-2α, thereby inhibiting translation of viral (and cellular) proteins. Other examples of proteins that detect viral dsRNA include 2′,5′-oligoadenylate (2–5A) synthetases [10], RNase L (activated via dimerization by 2–5A produced by 2–5A synthetases in response to dsRNA [11]), TLR 3 [12], interferon-inducible ADAR1 [13], and RIG-I and Mda-5 [6]–[7].

The second natural process used by our approach is one of the last steps in the apoptosis pathway [14], in which complexes containing intracellular apoptosis signaling molecules, such as apoptotic protease activating factor 1 (Apaf-1) [15]–[16] or FLICE-activated death domain (FADD) [17]–[18], simultaneously bind multiple procaspases. The procaspases transactivate via cleavage, activate additional caspases in the cascade, and cleave a variety of cellular proteins [14], thereby killing the cell.

Many viruses attempt to counter these defenses. A wide variety of viruses target dsRNA-induced signaling proteins, including IPS-1, interferon response factors (IRFs), interferons and interferon receptors, JAK/STAT proteins, and eIF-2α [19]–[20]. Some viral products attempt to sequester dsRNA (e.g., poxvirus E3L [21]) or to directly interfere with cellular dsRNA binding domains (e.g., HIV TAR RNA [19]–[20]). Virtually all viruses that inhibit apoptosis do so by targeting early steps in the pathway, for example by inhibiting p53, mimicking anti-apoptotic Bcl-2, or interfering with death receptor signaling [22]–[23]. Among the few viral proteins that directly inhibit one or more caspases are African swine fever virus A224L (which inhibits caspase 3) [24], poxvirus CrmA (which inhibits caspases 1, 8, and 10 but not others) [25], and baculovirus p35 (which inhibits several caspases but is relatively ineffective against caspase 9) [25].

Because PKR activation and caspase activation function in similar ways and involve proteins that have separate domains with well-defined functions, these two processes can be combined to circumvent most viral blockades [26]–[27]. In its simplest form, a DRACO is a chimeric protein with one domain that binds to viral dsRNA and a second domain (e.g., a procaspase-binding domain or a procaspase) that induces apoptosis when two or more DRACOs crosslink on the same dsRNA. If viral dsRNA is present inside a cell, DRACOs will bind to the dsRNA and induce apoptosis of that cell. If viral dsRNA is not present inside the cell, DRACOs will not crosslink and apoptosis will not occur.

For delivery into cells in vitro or in vivo, DRACOs can be fused with proven protein transduction tags, including a sequence from the HIV TAT protein [28], the related protein transduction domain 4 (PTD) [29], and polyarginine (ARG) [30]. These tags have been shown to carry large cargo molecules into both the cytoplasm and the nucleus of all cell types in vitro and in vivo, even across the blood-brain barrier.


http://www.plosone.o...al.pone.0022572
  • Informative x 1

#2 TheFountain

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 5,362 posts
  • 257

Posted 12 August 2011 - 01:00 AM

The transduction medium poly(I):poly© etc seem to be what makes it work, according to their logs. Apoptosis was largely increased when the various mediums (or tags) were combined with DRACO, as opposed to when DRACO was administered by its lonesome self. Nice work.

Edited by TheFountain, 12 August 2011 - 01:05 AM.


sponsored ad

  • Advert
Click HERE to rent this MEDICINES advertising spot to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

#3 AgeVivo

  • Guest, Engineer
  • 2,113 posts
  • 1,555

Posted 14 August 2011 - 09:52 AM

Very impressive

Any expert around to judge whether this is like the discovery of antibiotics or some temporary interest?

#4 TheFountain

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 5,362 posts
  • 257

Posted 14 August 2011 - 12:36 PM

Very impressive

Any expert around to judge whether this is like the discovery of antibiotics or some temporary interest?


I would just read the paper. There is where you will find the experts.
  • like x 2
  • dislike x 2

#5 AgeVivo

  • Guest, Engineer
  • 2,113 posts
  • 1,555

Posted 17 August 2011 - 08:32 PM

sure. i read it and it looks like very good work. what i mean is whether this might have a big impact on our lives
as questionned by others:
- would there be much more resistance with viruses than bacteria, thereby being of limited impact in time?
- could it be dangerous for those who have some viruses like herpes, as crital body cells ould enter apoptosis?
- other big picture?

#6 Dmitri

  • Guest
  • 841 posts
  • 33
  • Location:Houston and Chicago

Posted 17 August 2011 - 11:15 PM

The transduction medium poly(I):poly© etc seem to be what makes it work, according to their logs. Apoptosis was largely increased when the various mediums (or tags) were combined with DRACO, as opposed to when DRACO was administered by its lonesome self. Nice work.


This drug sounds similar to Ampligen, a drug the FDA rejected in 2009. From what I have read it's (Ampligen) only approved in Belgium to treat Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. Let's hope this new drug doesn't face the same fate as Ampligen (though the company claims it's in trials for Cancer, Hepatitis B and HIV).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ampligen
"Ampligen was developed in the 1960s after Merck & Co. synthesized a double-stranded RNA compound composed of inosinic and cytidylic acid residues (poly I:poly C or poly I:C). Poly I:C inhibited tumor growth by inducing interferon production".

#7 TheFountain

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 5,362 posts
  • 257

Posted 18 August 2011 - 03:43 AM

Why did I get a negative rating for pointing out the fact that the only real experts on this study are the ones who conducted it? Man people are ridiculous.
  • like x 2
  • dislike x 2

#8 ihatesnow

  • Guest
  • 776 posts
  • 251
  • Location:rochester new york

Posted 18 August 2011 - 12:04 PM

Why did I get a negative rating for pointing out the fact that the only real experts on this study are the ones who conducted it? Man people are ridiculous.



ill give you a plus to help you out
  • like x 1

#9 TheFountain

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 5,362 posts
  • 257

Posted 18 August 2011 - 12:16 PM

Why did I get a negative rating for pointing out the fact that the only real experts on this study are the ones who conducted it? Man people are ridiculous.



ill give you a plus to help you out


Thanks. The whiners apparently outnumber us though, since I got another one in its place.

Anyway. I agree with whoever said the FDA will highly regulate this. Which is sad, sickening and disgusting.
  • like x 1
  • dislike x 1

#10 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 18 August 2011 - 12:17 PM

Why did I get a negative rating for pointing out the fact that the only real experts on this study are the ones who conducted it? Man people are ridiculous.

You don't seem to realize that this site is read by real scientists, professors, MDs, doctoral candidates and others who have a pretty significant clue. Your comment might have been perceived as insulting or arrogant to someone like that. You don't have to be an author on the study to be able to comment intelligently on it. That's actually fundamental to the conduct of science.
  • like x 1

#11 TheFountain

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 5,362 posts
  • 257

Posted 18 August 2011 - 12:40 PM

Why did I get a negative rating for pointing out the fact that the only real experts on this study are the ones who conducted it? Man people are ridiculous.

You don't seem to realize that this site is read by real scientists, professors, MDs, doctoral candidates and others who have a pretty significant clue. Your comment might have been perceived as insulting or arrogant to someone like that. You don't have to be an author on the study to be able to comment intelligently on it. That's actually fundamental to the conduct of science.


I think gary taubes shows how fundamental scientific understanding, while useful, can also inhibit ones understanding of cross referential analysis pertaining to specific studies. I know will get a lovely thumbs down for this, but it's nevertheless true (his misunderstanding of the function of insulin in healthy individuals, for example).

And while I do respect the knowledge of people who have a core scientific understanding of many processes (I am still attaining such knowledge myself) I do have to draw the line when it comes to their opinion/speculation vs the outcome of a rigorous, long term study such as the one we are discussing. And to differ with your comment about it being insulting to these scientists to insinuate that they cannot be better judges of said study than the ones conducting it, on the contrary I find it insulting to assume one can mull over such extensive long term studies (on an anti-viral agent) with the implication that they can debunk any portion of said study, to be the very height of arrogance.

Yes, you are an individual with a core scientific understanding, but you also did not have first hand contact with the study environment in question, which, for a study of this magnitude, I feel is necessary to say anything convincing about its outcome that is unfavorable to it. Now, if it were a dietary study I would agree that 'the experts' should, to a degree, debunk the aspects of the study that seem inconsistent or biased toward a specific outcome, because as we all know many dietary studies are poorly designed. I don't see how any of that can be applied to this study though. How was it poorly designed? it seems to me that with studies on drugs, the design parameters are more fail safe than with dietary studies which tend to be confounded by a plethora of obstacles.
  • like x 1
  • dislike x 1

#12 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 18 August 2011 - 06:22 PM

sure. i read it and it looks like very good work. what i mean is whether this might have a big impact on our lives
as questionned by others:
- would there be much more resistance with viruses than bacteria, thereby being of limited impact in time?
- could it be dangerous for those who have some viruses like herpes, as crital body cells ould enter apoptosis?
- other big picture?

I think it's a brilliant piece of work. I do not think that there would be much more resistance than with bacteria, since it targets something very fundamental to the viral reproduction process. The virus can mutate all it wants, but that dsRNA is going to be there until it mutates all the way into a very different organism. The other half of the scheme is targeting human caspases, so viral mutation wouldn't apply. This doesn't mean that a virus couldn't come up with a defense of some sort, but I don't think it's going to be a big problem.

I don't see a danger from something like herpes, since in the cells where it lies dormant, there would be no dsRNA, so no activation of the DRACO.

Other big picture? Huge expense. This is a complex biological entity. It isn't going to be cheap any time soon, so using it as a cure for the common cold is probably out for most people. Assuming they can deliver it to the cells it needs to get to, I see expense as the biggest problem. Assuming it costs what I'd expect ($10K per treatment?) I doubt that insurance would cover it except for very serious diseases.
  • like x 2

#13 AgeVivo

  • Guest, Engineer
  • 2,113 posts
  • 1,555

Posted 18 August 2011 - 06:25 PM

This drug sounds similar to Ampligen, a drug the FDA rejected in 2009. From what I have read it's (Ampligen) only approved in Belgium to treat Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. Let's hope this new drug doesn't face the same fate as Ampligen (though the company claims it's in trials for Cancer, Hepatitis B and HIV).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ampligen
"Ampligen was developed in the 1960s after Merck & Co. synthesized a double-stranded RNA compound composed of inosinic and cytidylic acid residues (poly I:poly C or poly I:C). Poly I:C inhibited tumor growth by inducing interferon production".

Thank you Dimitri. Very interesting. The side-effects section of the Ampligen-wikipedia-link is a little ambiguous:

"No serious safety issues have resulted from the administration of ~75,000 doses IV (most commonly 400 mg) twice weekly for up to one year periods or greater. Animal toxicity studies support this observation in humans with primates demonstrating the greatest margin of safety."[28] A mild flushing reaction has occurred in about 15% of patients, and other reported side effects include chills, fever,malaise, leukopenia, neutropenia and leukocytosis. A full list is available on the Hemispherx website.[29] The extent of these side-effects is unknown.




The bottom of this page has some good discussions: http://healthland.ti...iral-infection/
Some suggest that a potential danger is that it method that works through destroying our own cells, others answer that the mice tested didn't seem to have too many issues, and others even see there a method to cure some cancers!?

Imagine if they could take this technology a step further so that cancerous cells self destruct...

They can! Apoptosis(programmed cell death) can be induced in cancerous cells that express certain receptor cites while cancerous. The cell can be stimulated to undergo Apoptosis via these receptor cites, with a chemical message that activates the cellular networks in control of cell death.
http://www.bbm1.ucm....2_2121_2131.pdf


Do you have any view on that? you quoted "inhibited tumor growth by inducing interferon production" about Ampligen, which seems quite different.

#14 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 18 August 2011 - 06:28 PM

Why did I get a negative rating for pointing out the fact that the only real experts on this study are the ones who conducted it? Man people are ridiculous.

You don't seem to realize that this site is read by real scientists, professors, MDs, doctoral candidates and others who have a pretty significant clue. Your comment might have been perceived as insulting or arrogant to someone like that. You don't have to be an author on the study to be able to comment intelligently on it. That's actually fundamental to the conduct of science.

I think gary taubes shows how fundamental scientific understanding, while useful, can also inhibit ones understanding of cross referential analysis pertaining to specific studies. I know will get a lovely thumbs down for this, but it's nevertheless true (his misunderstanding of the function of insulin in healthy individuals, for example).

Ignorance is bliss. Check.

And while I do respect the knowledge of people who have a core scientific understanding of many processes (I am still attaining such knowledge myself) I do have to draw the line when it comes to their opinion/speculation vs the outcome of a rigorous, long term study such as the one we are discussing. And to differ with your comment about it being insulting to these scientists to insinuate that they cannot be better judges of said study than the ones conducting it, on the contrary I find it insulting to assume one can mull over such extensive long term studies (on an anti-viral agent) with the implication that they can debunk any portion of said study, to be the very height of arrogance.

Yes, you are an individual with a core scientific understanding, but you also did not have first hand contact with the study environment in question, which, for a study of this magnitude, I feel is necessary to say anything convincing about its outcome that is unfavorable to it.

"Rigorous", "extensive long term study"? Get a grip, it was a proof of concept experiment. If only the authors can critique the work, then how in the hell does peer review work?
  • like x 1

#15 AgeVivo

  • Guest, Engineer
  • 2,113 posts
  • 1,555

Posted 18 August 2011 - 06:32 PM

Thank you niner for your scientific inputs

Assuming they can deliver it to the cells it needs to get to, I see expense as the biggest problem. (...) I doubt that insurance would cover it except for very serious diseases.

Does it seem plausible to adapt the method to target some receptors of cancerous cells?

Edited by AgeVivo, 18 August 2011 - 06:34 PM.


#16 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 19 August 2011 - 02:04 AM

Thank you niner for your scientific inputs

Assuming they can deliver it to the cells it needs to get to, I see expense as the biggest problem. (...) I doubt that insurance would cover it except for very serious diseases.

Does it seem plausible to adapt the method to target some receptors of cancerous cells?

The problem with cancerous cells is that they are so similar to healthy cells. With virus-infected cells, you have these very obvious large features, the long dsRNA, that aren't found in healthy human cells, and you have a way to recognize them very accurately. With a cancer cell, you would need to be able to recognize a unique feature and couple that to the caspase cascade. I think that would be pretty hard to do. There have been a lot of attempts to recognize surface antigens on cancer cells by some sort of monoclonal antibody, and couple that recognition to something that destroys the cell. These seem great in theory, but I don't think they've panned out in practice the way everyone hoped they would.
  • Good Point x 2
  • like x 1

#17 TheFountain

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 5,362 posts
  • 257

Posted 19 August 2011 - 07:15 AM

Why did I get a negative rating for pointing out the fact that the only real experts on this study are the ones who conducted it? Man people are ridiculous.

You don't seem to realize that this site is read by real scientists, professors, MDs, doctoral candidates and others who have a pretty significant clue. Your comment might have been perceived as insulting or arrogant to someone like that. You don't have to be an author on the study to be able to comment intelligently on it. That's actually fundamental to the conduct of science.

I think gary taubes shows how fundamental scientific understanding, while useful, can also inhibit ones understanding of cross referential analysis pertaining to specific studies. I know will get a lovely thumbs down for this, but it's nevertheless true (his misunderstanding of the function of insulin in healthy individuals, for example).

Ignorance is bliss. Check.

And while I do respect the knowledge of people who have a core scientific understanding of many processes (I am still attaining such knowledge myself) I do have to draw the line when it comes to their opinion/speculation vs the outcome of a rigorous, long term study such as the one we are discussing. And to differ with your comment about it being insulting to these scientists to insinuate that they cannot be better judges of said study than the ones conducting it, on the contrary I find it insulting to assume one can mull over such extensive long term studies (on an anti-viral agent) with the implication that they can debunk any portion of said study, to be the very height of arrogance.

Yes, you are an individual with a core scientific understanding, but you also did not have first hand contact with the study environment in question, which, for a study of this magnitude, I feel is necessary to say anything convincing about its outcome that is unfavorable to it.

"Rigorous", "extensive long term study"? Get a grip, it was a proof of concept experiment. If only the authors can critique the work, then how in the hell does peer review work?


Presumably how it usually works out, by replicating the process of the original study environment (oh wait, it usually doesn't work like that? well it should!). Not just reading it and forming an opinion based on this. By all means, please replicate what they did and tell us what you find though.

I know you refute my take on Gary Taubes miscomprehension and subsequent misrepresentation of the function of insulin, but I expect no less from people who adhere to paleo like a religion.

By the way, are you a member of a group of impartial professional experts who peer review studies or just someone with *some* knowledge in the field, enough to sorta kinda form a sorta kinda opinion? just curious.

By the way 2.0, have you heard of something called 'peer review failure'? It probably happens a lot on forums where people who are not chosen experts attempt to review and speculate on something and then their speculation does not pan out, either with epidemiology or more extensive studies. Let's stick with chosen specialists, yes?

Edited by TheFountain, 19 August 2011 - 07:26 AM.

  • dislike x 1

#18 Dmitri

  • Guest
  • 841 posts
  • 33
  • Location:Houston and Chicago

Posted 19 August 2011 - 07:17 AM

This drug sounds similar to Ampligen, a drug the FDA rejected in 2009. From what I have read it's (Ampligen) only approved in Belgium to treat Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. Let's hope this new drug doesn't face the same fate as Ampligen (though the company claims it's in trials for Cancer, Hepatitis B and HIV).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ampligen
"Ampligen was developed in the 1960s after Merck & Co. synthesized a double-stranded RNA compound composed of inosinic and cytidylic acid residues (poly I:poly C or poly I:C). Poly I:C inhibited tumor growth by inducing interferon production".

Thank you Dimitri. Very interesting. The side-effects section of the Ampligen-wikipedia-link is a little ambiguous:

"No serious safety issues have resulted from the administration of ~75,000 doses IV (most commonly 400 mg) twice weekly for up to one year periods or greater. Animal toxicity studies support this observation in humans with primates demonstrating the greatest margin of safety."[28] A mild flushing reaction has occurred in about 15% of patients, and other reported side effects include chills, fever,malaise, leukopenia, neutropenia and leukocytosis. A full list is available on the Hemispherx website.[29] The extent of these side-effects is unknown.



No Problem, I have also seen some websites where people suffering from CFS have complained about the FDA not approving the drug (Ampligen) because some claim it was the only thing that made them feel better. As for the DRACO I only hope it doesn't take them decades to file for approval with the FDA, did you see that Ampligen was developed in the 1960s and it didn't apply until 2004 for drug status. I don't understand why the long wait for some compounds which have shown efficacy in cell cultures and animal studies. I found another compound that has shown broad spectrum antiviral activity for various viral families and studies have been done since the 80s and it still doesn't seem to be in use. One of those SAH hydrolase Inhibitors had positive results in immune compromised mice infected with Ebola (not sure why they used mice with weak immune systems to test it).

Here are the studies on the SAH hydrolase Inhibitors:

http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/16438025
"The antiviral activity spectrum of the SAH hydrolase inhibitors include pox-, rhabdo-, filo-, arena-, paramyxo-, reo-, and retroviruses."


http://www.ncbi.nlm..../pubmed/6307139
In its activity against vesicular stomatitis virus, parainfluenza virus, measles and reo virus, C-c3 Ado proved about 100 times more potent than other established broad-spectrum antiviraL agents such as ribavirin (virazole) and (S)-DHPA ((S)-9-(2,3-dihydroxypropyl)adenine). In vivo, C-c3 Ado protected newborn mice against a lethal infection of vesicular stomatitis virus when administered as a single dose of 20, 100 or 500 micrograms per mouse 1 h after virus infection.


I wonder if the drug mentioned above could be used in the Milwaukee protocol that has been developed for Rabies; considering Vesicular Stomatitis virus belongs to the same family of viruses (Rhabdo) and this compound can suppress it? Do you think it's possible for it to also suppress rabies?


http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/10809022
We previously observed that adult, immunocompetent mice treated thrice daily for 9 days with 2.2-20 mg/kg of an adenosine analogue, carbocyclic 3-deazaadenosine, were protected against lethal Ebola virus challenge. We now report that a single inoculation of 80 mg/kg or less of the same substance, or of 1 mg/kg or less of another analogue, 3-deazaneplanocin A, provides equal or better protection, without causing acute toxicity. One dose of drug given on the first or second day after virus infection reduced peak viremia more than 1000-fold, compared with mock-treated controls, and resulted in survival of most or all animals. Therapy was less effective when administered on the day of challenge, or on the third day postinfection. Single or multiple doses of the same medications suppressed Ebola replication in severe combined immunodeficient mice, but even daily treatment for 15 consecutive days did not eliminate the infection.
  • like x 1

#19 TheFountain

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 5,362 posts
  • 257

Posted 19 August 2011 - 07:35 AM

By the way, I am not telling people not to speculate, just trying to call attention to the fact that it raises confusion when people who are not chosen experts give reviews of such extensive works. Especially in those who are still learning.

#20 TheFountain

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 5,362 posts
  • 257

Posted 19 August 2011 - 01:42 PM

Dimitri, as soon as you realize that the FDA is not exactly an institution which has our best health interests in mind you will understand why things like this take so long to be approved.

How did people who said Ampligen worked for them gain access to it if it wasn't commercially released? The clinical trials performed in the mid 1980s?

Were these mainly people in countries where the drug has been available for emergency release since the 90s, like canada?

My goodness america really sucks when it comes to these things.

Edited by TheFountain, 19 August 2011 - 01:45 PM.


#21 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 19 August 2011 - 06:30 PM

If only the authors can critique the work, then how in the hell does peer review work?

Presumably how it usually works out, by replicating the process of the original study environment (oh wait, it usually doesn't work like that? well it should!). Not just reading it and forming an opinion based on this. By all means, please replicate what they did and tell us what you find though.

Peer review is almost exclusively people who are peers of the submitting scientist just reading a manuscript and commenting on it. Reviewers are generally rustled up by the journal editors. Sometimes the submitting scientist will suggest appropriate reviewers, which I find ethically dubious, but sometimes it's appropriate. The editor doesn't have to pay any attention to it. Someone who gets a request to review might suggest a more appropriate person. An advisor or manager might pawn off a review on a scientific underling, though ultimately the reviewer's name is known, at least to the editor, sometimes to the submitter. Reviewing is a LOT of work, unless you do a slapdash job. You get nothing for it. It's kind of like Jury Duty.

I know you refute my take on Gary Taubes miscomprehension and subsequent misrepresentation of the function of insulin, but I expect no less from people who adhere to paleo like a religion.

Where do you get that I adhere to paleo "like a religion"? Was that a paleo doughnut I ate the other day? (OK, it was half a doughnut. That might have been a nod to paleo...)

By the way, are you a member of a group of impartial professional experts who peer review studies or just someone with *some* knowledge in the field, enough to sorta kinda form a sorta kinda opinion? just curious.

I have a PhD in pharmaceutical chemistry, industry experience, publications and patents. I've been asked to review a number of papers. For what it's worth.

By the way 2.0, have you heard of something called 'peer review failure'? It probably happens a lot on forums where people who are not chosen experts attempt to review and speculate on something and then their speculation does not pan out, either with epidemiology or more extensive studies. Let's stick with chosen specialists, yes?

Sure, peer review fails all the time. I would say that it's better than no review at all by a wide margin, but it's not foolproof. Peer review doesn't happen on forums where clowns are allowed to participate. "Chosen" experts? Interesting term. Reminds me of these two Orthodox Jewish rappers (I am not making this up) who had a line that went something like this:

We're so cool, we're almost frozen!
We got to be, 'cuz we're The Chosen!

Edited by niner, 19 August 2011 - 06:38 PM.


#22 Dmitri

  • Guest
  • 841 posts
  • 33
  • Location:Houston and Chicago

Posted 19 August 2011 - 07:37 PM

Imagine if they could take this technology a step further so that cancerous cells self destruct...
They can! Apoptosis(programmed cell death) can be induced in cancerous cells that express certain receptor cites while cancerous. The cell can be stimulated to undergo Apoptosis via these receptor cites, with a chemical message that activates the cellular networks in control of cell death.
http://www.bbm1.ucm....2_2121_2131.pdf

Do you have any view on that? you quoted "inhibited tumor growth by inducing interferon production" about Ampligen, which seems quite different.


Sorry, I was only quoting some random passage that mentioned some of it's benefits; I considered Ampligen similar to this new drug because both can cause apoptosis in cells that are infected.

#23 InquilineKea

  • Guest
  • 773 posts
  • 89
  • Location:Redmond,WA (aka Simfish)

Posted 19 August 2011 - 10:55 PM

Assuming they can deliver it to the cells it needs to get to, I see expense as the biggest problem. (...) I doubt that insurance would cover it except for very serious diseases.


Get China to fund it, maybe? China has many issues, but at least its lack of participatory democracy does lead it to do things that Americans otherwise wouldn't do due to excessive regulations

(as an example, massive genome-wide studies on intelligence, although an American study did recently come up)

#24 TheFountain

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 5,362 posts
  • 257

Posted 19 August 2011 - 11:15 PM

If only the authors can critique the work, then how in the hell does peer review work?

Presumably how it usually works out, by replicating the process of the original study environment (oh wait, it usually doesn't work like that? well it should!). Not just reading it and forming an opinion based on this. By all means, please replicate what they did and tell us what you find though.

Peer review is almost exclusively people who are peers of the submitting scientist just reading a manuscript and commenting on it. Reviewers are generally rustled up by the journal editors. Sometimes the submitting scientist will suggest appropriate reviewers, which I find ethically dubious, but sometimes it's appropriate. The editor doesn't have to pay any attention to it. Someone who gets a request to review might suggest a more appropriate person. An advisor or manager might pawn off a review on a scientific underling, though ultimately the reviewer's name is known, at least to the editor, sometimes to the submitter. Reviewing is a LOT of work, unless you do a slapdash job. You get nothing for it. It's kind of like Jury Duty.

I know you refute my take on Gary Taubes miscomprehension and subsequent misrepresentation of the function of insulin, but I expect no less from people who adhere to paleo like a religion.

Where do you get that I adhere to paleo "like a religion"? Was that a paleo doughnut I ate the other day? (OK, it was half a doughnut. That might have been a nod to paleo...)

By the way, are you a member of a group of impartial professional experts who peer review studies or just someone with *some* knowledge in the field, enough to sorta kinda form a sorta kinda opinion? just curious.

I have a PhD in pharmaceutical chemistry, industry experience, publications and patents. I've been asked to review a number of papers. For what it's worth.

By the way 2.0, have you heard of something called 'peer review failure'? It probably happens a lot on forums where people who are not chosen experts attempt to review and speculate on something and then their speculation does not pan out, either with epidemiology or more extensive studies. Let's stick with chosen specialists, yes?

Sure, peer review fails all the time. I would say that it's better than no review at all by a wide margin, but it's not foolproof. Peer review doesn't happen on forums where clowns are allowed to participate. "Chosen" experts? Interesting term. Reminds me of these two Orthodox Jewish rappers (I am not making this up) who had a line that went something like this:

We're so cool, we're almost frozen!
We got to be, 'cuz we're The Chosen!


My understanding of how it works is that publications will choose a specific professional body of 'experts' for the job of peer review, then this review is released to the public after this body, usually consisting of those who have chosen the speciality that is called upon in said study, will go to work on finding any errors or inconsistencies before submitting it to another panel review. Or am I crazy??????

#25 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 20 August 2011 - 03:41 AM

My understanding of how it works is that publications will choose a specific professional body of 'experts' for the job of peer review, then this review is released to the public after this body, usually consisting of those who have chosen the speciality that is called upon in said study, will go to work on finding any errors or inconsistencies before submitting it to another panel review. Or am I crazy??????

Not exactly. The journal editors will generally have a healthy rolodex. One of their roles is to know who does what in the field, and get to know enough people that they can get submissions reviewed. It's not a fixed list; people come and go. There might be 4 reviewers on a paper. They could say it's fine, publish it, or publish after the following changes, or re-review after addressing certain points, or just reject it. Once the paper has passed review, there's no further panel; it just gets published. The reviews are not released to the public. They would be seen by the editor(s) and the authors of the paper, but no one else. The authors wouldn't see the reviewer's names, though they might be able to figure out who they are from the nature of their criticism.

Edited by niner, 20 August 2011 - 03:46 AM.


#26 Dmitri

  • Guest
  • 841 posts
  • 33
  • Location:Houston and Chicago

Posted 20 August 2011 - 06:59 PM

Dimitri, as soon as you realize that the FDA is not exactly an institution which has our best health interests in mind you will understand why things like this take so long to be approved.

How did people who said Ampligen worked for them gain access to it if it wasn't commercially released? The clinical trials performed in the mid 1980s?

Were these mainly people in countries where the drug has been available for emergency release since the 90s, like canada?

My goodness america really sucks when it comes to these things.


The people who were on trials. I also read that in the late 80s early 90s there were small trials with Ampligen in conjunction with AZT and it made AZT far more effective even in those who had developed resistance to AZT. However, the FDA refused to allow larger scale trials with Ampligen and the company abandoned the idea and moved on to testing in Belgium (where it was approved in 1996 for CFS not sure about HIV) and Canada.

Edited by Dmitri, 20 August 2011 - 07:00 PM.


sponsored ad

  • Advert
Click HERE to rent this MEDICINES advertising spot to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

#27 Nate-2004

  • Guest
  • 2,375 posts
  • 357
  • Location:Heredia, Costa Rica
  • NO

Posted 03 October 2016 - 02:07 PM

DRACOs sounds interesting I wonder what happened to this. I'm guessing it failed in human trials?


Edited by Nate-2004, 03 October 2016 - 02:07 PM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users