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

Photo

Can we do a personal trial on DRACO?

draco test medicine

  • Please log in to reply
32 replies to this topic
⌛⇒ current fundraiser: B.A.S.E Victor @ OpenCures

#1 soulprogrammer

  • Guest
  • 154 posts
  • 14
  • Location:Singapore

Posted 03 May 2020 - 09:06 AM


Can we do a self personal trial on DRACO?

 

We can do a small group ordering and each of us try a bit, say 10mg? Then perhaps increase dosage if no side effect and report personal experience and maybe add a blood test report before and after?

 

Is it even allowed?

 

 



#2 kurt9

  • Guest
  • 154 posts
  • 5

Posted 03 May 2020 - 02:51 PM

Do we even know what the actual ingredients of DRACO are?



sponsored ad

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

#3 Hip

  • Guest
  • 738 posts
  • 255
  • Location:UK

Posted 03 May 2020 - 05:07 PM

Todd Rider's 2011 paper on DRACO here: Broad-Spectrum Antiviral Therapeutics.

 

DRACO works by targeting dsRNA, which is only produced in cells that have been infected by viruses. DRACO is a molecule which combines a dsRNA-binding protein bonded to another protein that induces cells to undergo apoptosis. So two proteins each with their own function which are bonded together. 
 
DRACO is drawn into virally-infected cells, and then kills them. Works for the majority of viruses, since nearly all viruses generate dsRNA in cells.

 

 

 

 

Count Dracula, on the other hand, is a character from a 19th century gothic horror novel, who is drawn to the necks of beautiful women, and then kills them.
 
 


Edited by Hip, 03 May 2020 - 05:21 PM.


⌛⇒ current fundraiser: B.A.S.E Victor @ OpenCures

#4 soulprogrammer

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 154 posts
  • 14
  • Location:Singapore

Posted 04 May 2020 - 03:32 AM

Do we even know what the actual ingredients of DRACO are?

Yes, I already have the complete sequence of DRACO for homo sapiens (with the help from a virologist PhD). I even get the quotation from a manufacturer, it said 6 weeks to make the protein. 

 

I asked for 1 g. The purity is >95% and delivery will be 6 weeks.



#5 Hip

  • Guest
  • 738 posts
  • 255
  • Location:UK

Posted 04 May 2020 - 04:14 AM

Yes, I already have the complete sequence of DRACO for homo sapiens (with the help from a virologist PhD).

 

May I ask where you found the sequence for the proteins in DRACO? 



#6 soulprogrammer

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 154 posts
  • 14
  • Location:Singapore

Posted 04 May 2020 - 06:17 AM

May I ask where you found the sequence for the proteins in DRACO? 

 

From Dr. Rider's paper and his patent. 


  • like x 1

#7 Hip

  • Guest
  • 738 posts
  • 255
  • Location:UK

Posted 04 May 2020 - 02:06 PM

From Dr. Rider's paper and his patent. 

 

Ah OK. This would appear to be Todd Rider's DRACO patent. 

 

How have you selected the particular DRACO to get custom synthesized? I believe the paper lists several DRACOs which are variations on the same theme. Presumably some variants of DRACO will work better than others.

 

 

 

It would be interesting to see if DRACO could cure or greatly ameliorate various chronic diseases.

 

It's not generally appreciated that diseases like diabetes, multiple sclerosis, lupus, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, heart diseases, chronic fatigue syndrome, and many others are associated with persistent low-level viral infection. If DRACO can eliminate the viral infection driving the disease, then it may substantially ameliorate or cure the chronic illness.


Edited by Hip, 04 May 2020 - 02:07 PM.


#8 soulprogrammer

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 154 posts
  • 14
  • Location:Singapore

Posted 04 May 2020 - 02:16 PM

Ah OK. This would appear to be Todd Rider's DRACO patent. 

 

How have you selected the particular DRACO to get custom synthesized? I believe the paper lists several DRACOs which are variations on the same theme. Presumably some variants of DRACO will work better than others.

 

 

 

It would be interesting to see if DRACO could cure or greatly ameliorate various chronic diseases.

 

It's not generally appreciated that diseases like diabetes, multiple sclerosis, lupus, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, heart diseases, chronic fatigue syndrome, and many others are associated with persistent low-level viral infection. If DRACO can eliminate the viral infection driving the disease, then it may substantially ameliorate or cure the chronic illness.

 

 

Yes, I selected PTD-RNaseL-Apaf

 

I'm more keen to see if DRACO can cure coronavirus or not. Of course, theoretically, it should be able to cure other RNA viruses diseases too.  But it all theoretical assumption, we need to test to know for sure.

 

Now the inventor seems like abandon the research for some unknown reason. 



#9 Hip

  • Guest
  • 738 posts
  • 255
  • Location:UK

Posted 04 May 2020 - 02:31 PM

Now the inventor seems like abandon the research for some unknown reason. 

 

He apparently cannot get funding to continue the research. There is a Business Insider article which explains it:

After working on his invention for 16 years, he's [Todd Rider] found himself in what he calls "the funding valley of death," too far along to get money from those who supported his preliminary studies and too far from market to get Big Pharma's backing.

So pharmaceutical companies will not invest because in DRACO because there is too long a way before it reaches the market. 

 

The only people who might invest in DRACO are government science research funding agencies, like the National Institutes of Health in the US. But these agencies have let DRACO languish for the last 16 years.



⌛⇒ current fundraiser: B.A.S.E Victor @ OpenCures

#10 soulprogrammer

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 154 posts
  • 14
  • Location:Singapore

Posted 05 May 2020 - 01:33 AM

Seems like not many interested on DRACO.

 

I keep wondering, DRACO might cure coronavirus and yet government, researchers, billionaires, all don't fund this very promising research.

 

Everyone keep funding/researching vaccine which might not even works and takes long time. There are already too many companies making/researching vaccine. Yet more and more companies/govn agencies pouring billions of dollars into vaccine.

 

All we need is 1 govn agency or 1 billionaire to fund this research. Yet, no one care. Bill Gate, Mark Zuckerberg, ... I saw many public donated millions of dollars to treat 1 patient.  



#11 Hebbeh

  • Guest
  • 1,445 posts
  • 682

Posted 05 May 2020 - 02:11 AM

So pharmaceutical companies will not invest because in DRACO because there is too long a way before it reaches the market.

 

Isn't that true of virtually every single drug that pharmaceutical companies develop in house?

In fact, if DRACO was as promising as it would seem, unlike in house development from scratch, much of the front end development is already complete.  If it was truly as promising as it seems, then it should be a slam dunk with substantial easy profits relatively quickly compared to development of every other drug they can imagine that isn't in the pipeline yet.



#12 Hip

  • Guest
  • 738 posts
  • 255
  • Location:UK

Posted 05 May 2020 - 02:50 AM

Isn't that true of virtually every single drug that pharmaceutical companies develop in house?

 

I don't know that much about drug development cycles, but some drugs do not start life in a pharmaceutical company, but in a university or other research institute. Then if a drug company sees potential in a university-developed drug, it might buy the intellectual property rights to it, and might further develop it, and put it through human clinical trials, and then finally get it FDA approved and bring it to market.

 

But I presume a pharmaceutical company will only snap up the intellectual property rights when a drug has reached some maturity in terms of development. If the drug development stage is still far from market, and still has a long way to go before it becomes a proven concept, they might not want to take a gamble on it. This appears to be the case with DRACO, according to the Business Insider article.


Edited by Hip, 05 May 2020 - 02:53 AM.


#13 kurt9

  • Guest
  • 154 posts
  • 5

Posted 10 May 2020 - 09:22 PM

Someone on another site mentioned that DRACO works specifically against double-stranded viruses. SARS-CoV2 is a single-stranded virus. Perhaps DRACO will not work in this case. Any comments?



#14 Hip

  • Guest
  • 738 posts
  • 255
  • Location:UK

Posted 10 May 2020 - 09:45 PM

Someone on another site mentioned that DRACO works specifically against double-stranded viruses. SARS-CoV2 is a single-stranded virus. Perhaps DRACO will not work in this case. Any comments?

 

That's not correct. 

 

There are seven fundamental types of virus detailed in the Baltimore classification. These types include:

 

double-stranded DNA viruses

double-stranded RNA viruses

 

single-stranded DNA viruses

 

positive-sense single-stranded RNA viruses

negative-sense single-stranded RNA viruses

 

(and there are two other fundamental types of virus)

 

 

The Baltimore classification simply indicates what type of DNA or RNA is used to encode the viral genome (the genes of the virus). So for example, a double-stranded DNA virus contains double-stranded DNA to encode the genome. The genome is located within the viral capsid (the capsid is the outer shell of the virus).

 

 

 

However, most viruses irrespective of Baltimore type will produce double-stranded RNA as a by-product while they replicate inside cells. It is this double-stranded RNA by-product which DRACO targets. A positive-sense single-stranded RNA virus like coronavirus will produce double-stranded RNA when it replicates inside a cell. And DRACO will target that.

 

This double-stranded RNA by-product is different to the Baltimore type. So I think the person on the other website is confusing these two things. You might want to correct the misunderstanding on that other site.

 

 

 

The only fundamental type of virus DRACO does not work for are negative-sense single-stranded RNA viruses (as these do not produce a double-stranded RNA by-product when they replicate).


Edited by Hip, 10 May 2020 - 09:50 PM.

  • Informative x 2

#15 kurt9

  • Guest
  • 154 posts
  • 5

Posted 11 May 2020 - 03:42 AM

Thanks for letting me know.



#16 soulprogrammer

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 154 posts
  • 14
  • Location:Singapore

Posted 11 May 2020 - 01:30 PM

Someone on another site mentioned that DRACO works specifically against double-stranded viruses. SARS-CoV2 is a single-stranded virus. Perhaps DRACO will not work in this case. Any comments?

 

 

Which "another" site? Do you have link?



#17 soulprogrammer

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 154 posts
  • 14
  • Location:Singapore

Posted 11 May 2020 - 01:33 PM

That's not correct. 

 

There are seven fundamental types of virus detailed in the Baltimore classification. These types include:

 

double-stranded DNA viruses

double-stranded RNA viruses

 

single-stranded DNA viruses

 

positive-sense single-stranded RNA viruses

negative-sense single-stranded RNA viruses

 

(and there are two other fundamental types of virus)

 

 

The Baltimore classification simply indicates what type of DNA or RNA is used to encode the viral genome (the genes of the virus). So for example, a double-stranded DNA virus contains double-stranded DNA to encode the genome. The genome is located within the viral capsid (the capsid is the outer shell of the virus).

 

 

 

However, most viruses irrespective of Baltimore type will produce double-stranded RNA as a by-product while they replicate inside cells. It is this double-stranded RNA by-product which DRACO targets. A positive-sense single-stranded RNA virus like coronavirus will produce double-stranded RNA when it replicates inside a cell. And DRACO will target that.

 

This double-stranded RNA by-product is different to the Baltimore type. So I think the person on the other website is confusing these two things. You might want to correct the misunderstanding on that other site.

 

 

 

The only fundamental type of virus DRACO does not work for are negative-sense single-stranded RNA viruses (as these do not produce a double-stranded RNA by-product when they replicate).

 

Very informative. Yes, DRACO has very good potential to be able to cure coronavirus. It is sad no funding for this research and the Dr. Rider is not responding despite many people try to contact him via email, call, and other social media. 

 

Govn need to fund this research. This is a game changer, not only for current pandemic but possibly for future pandemic.

 

Pls support and sign the petition below:-

 

https://www.change.o...isease-covid-19



#18 kurt9

  • Guest
  • 154 posts
  • 5

Posted 11 May 2020 - 11:05 PM

Which "another" site? Do you have link?

 

It was Gregory Cochran's blog: https://westhunt.wor...t-is-yet-to-be/



#19 soulprogrammer

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 154 posts
  • 14
  • Location:Singapore

Posted 12 May 2020 - 03:20 PM

That's not correct. 

 

There are seven fundamental types of virus detailed in the Baltimore classification. These types include:

 

double-stranded DNA viruses

double-stranded RNA viruses

 

single-stranded DNA viruses

 

positive-sense single-stranded RNA viruses

negative-sense single-stranded RNA viruses

 

(and there are two other fundamental types of virus)

 

 

The Baltimore classification simply indicates what type of DNA or RNA is used to encode the viral genome (the genes of the virus). So for example, a double-stranded DNA virus contains double-stranded DNA to encode the genome. The genome is located within the viral capsid (the capsid is the outer shell of the virus).

 

 

 

However, most viruses irrespective of Baltimore type will produce double-stranded RNA as a by-product while they replicate inside cells. It is this double-stranded RNA by-product which DRACO targets. A positive-sense single-stranded RNA virus like coronavirus will produce double-stranded RNA when it replicates inside a cell. And DRACO will target that.

 

This double-stranded RNA by-product is different to the Baltimore type. So I think the person on the other website is confusing these two things. You might want to correct the misunderstanding on that other site.

 

 

 

The only fundamental type of virus DRACO does not work for are negative-sense single-stranded RNA viruses (as these do not produce a double-stranded RNA by-product when they replicate).

 

 

So in theory, what disease can DRACO cure? Like Hep A, B, C? Flu? H1N1? Coronavirus? 



#20 Hip

  • Guest
  • 738 posts
  • 255
  • Location:UK

Posted 12 May 2020 - 05:04 PM

So in theory, what disease can DRACO cure? Like Hep A, B, C? Flu? H1N1? Coronavirus? 

 

There are literally hundreds of chronic diseases which have been associated with chronic low-level viral infection, including type 1 diabetes, multiple sclerosis, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, lupus, numerous cancers, various heart diseases and heart valve diseases, atherosclerosis, stroke, infertility, etc.

 

A list of chronic diseases linked to viruses and other infectious pathogens can be found here.

 

None of these diseases are yet definitely proven to be caused by the infectious pathogens they are associated with, but there is a good possibility that they might, so DRACO would be an interesting experimental treatment for any of these diseases.

 

 

 

Then you have the chronic diseases which are known and proven to be caused by viruses, such as hepatitis B and C infection of the liver, chronic myocarditis (caused by coxsackievirus B and others), nasopharyngeal carcinoma (a cancer caused by Epstein-Barr virus), cervical cancer (caused by human papillomavirus), Kaposi's sarcoma (a cancer caused by the HHV-8 virus), etc.

 

 

 

DRACO could potentially treat all these diseases. Moreover, DRACO might be effective as a preventative treatment, to prevent chronic disease from occurring in the first place, by eliminating the dozens of viruses most adult human beings already carry in their body, before these viruses can trigger a chronic disease or cancer.

 

Usually viruses will not immediately trigger a chronic disease or cancer; after you catch the virus, it may take years or decades before the disease manifests. So if you can clear the viruses in your body before they trigger disease, this would be the best approach.

 

Of course, if you clear your viruses, you will go on to catch new ones, as there are hundreds of human viruses in general circulation. So DRACO therapy might be repeated once every say 5 years, to keep the body clean from viruses. 

 

 

 

The difficulty might be getting DRACO to work for latent viruses (viruses which have entered a cell and then go into a pre-programed dormant state of very little activity). DRACO targets the dsRNA that viruses make during replication; but during latency viruses do not replicate, and so I imagine will produce very little, if any, dsRNA. 

 

Latency is one way viruses hide from the immune system, and possibly latency might allow viruses to hide from DRACO too (though I don't know enough about DRACO to say for sure).

 

In fact researchers have been looking at ways of trying to reawaken viruses from latency, because it they can do this, and if the viruses wake up and start replicating again, then either the immune system and/or antivirals can target and eliminate these replicating viruses.

 

So DRACO in combination with a drug that can wake viruses from latency might be sufficient to fully eliminate viruses entirely from the body.



#21 soulprogrammer

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 154 posts
  • 14
  • Location:Singapore

Posted 14 May 2020 - 02:45 AM

There are literally hundreds of chronic diseases which have been associated with chronic low-level viral infection, including type 1 diabetes, multiple sclerosis, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, lupus, numerous cancers, various heart diseases and heart valve diseases, atherosclerosis, stroke, infertility, etc.

 

A list of chronic diseases linked to viruses and other infectious pathogens can be found here.

 

None of these diseases are yet definitely proven to be caused by the infectious pathogens they are associated with, but there is a good possibility that they might, so DRACO would be an interesting experimental treatment for any of these diseases.

 

 

 

Then you have the chronic diseases which are known and proven to be caused by viruses, such as hepatitis B and C infection of the liver, chronic myocarditis (caused by coxsackievirus B and others), nasopharyngeal carcinoma (a cancer caused by Epstein-Barr virus), cervical cancer (caused by human papillomavirus), Kaposi's sarcoma (a cancer caused by the HHV-8 virus), etc.

 

 

 

DRACO could potentially treat all these diseases. Moreover, DRACO might be effective as a preventative treatment, to prevent chronic disease from occurring in the first place, by eliminating the dozens of viruses most adult human beings already carry in their body, before these viruses can trigger a chronic disease or cancer.

 

Usually viruses will not immediately trigger a chronic disease or cancer; after you catch the virus, it may take years or decades before the disease manifests. So if you can clear the viruses in your body before they trigger disease, this would be the best approach.

 

Of course, if you clear your viruses, you will go on to catch new ones, as there are hundreds of human viruses in general circulation. So DRACO therapy might be repeated once every say 5 years, to keep the body clean from viruses. 

 

 

 

The difficulty might be getting DRACO to work for latent viruses (viruses which have entered a cell and then go into a pre-programed dormant state of very little activity). DRACO targets the dsRNA that viruses make during replication; but during latency viruses do not replicate, and so I imagine will produce very little, if any, dsRNA. 

 

Latency is one way viruses hide from the immune system, and possibly latency might allow viruses to hide from DRACO too (though I don't know enough about DRACO to say for sure).

 

In fact researchers have been looking at ways of trying to reawaken viruses from latency, because it they can do this, and if the viruses wake up and start replicating again, then either the immune system and/or antivirals can target and eliminate these replicating viruses.

 

So DRACO in combination with a drug that can wake viruses from latency might be sufficient to fully eliminate viruses entirely from the body.

 

 

I was shocked to see the link you gave. Chronic diseases like diabetes, cancer, even asthma linked to virus?????

 

Is the https://sites.google...kedtopathogens/  source genuine? I thought chronic disease has nothing to do with virus! Stroke also link to virus!!!!???

 

I really doubt the source legit. It is pseudo scienc?



#22 seba

  • Guest
  • 2 posts
  • 2
  • Location:Finland

Posted 14 May 2020 - 02:04 PM

I was shocked to see the link you gave. Chronic diseases like diabetes, cancer, even asthma linked to virus?????

Is the https://sites.google...kedtopathogens/  source genuine? I thought chronic disease has nothing to do with virus! Stroke also link to virus!!!!???

 

I really doubt the source legit. It is pseudo scienc?

 

It's important to note that on the same website, there's a mention of Professor Paul W. Ewald asserting that many chronic diseases may well be cause by persistent low-level infections. Keyword is may. It's a theory of his. It doesn't mean that it causes the diseases. Though, we may well in the future find out that certain diseases are caused by latent viruses.

 

We already know that for example, just from wikipedia, we find out that EBV is associated with "lymphoproliferative diseases such as Burkitt lymphoma, hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis, and Hodgkin's lymphoma." Also, cancers like "gastric cancer and nasopharyngeal carcinoma."

 

The website that he linked just allows anyone to create a website without having to pay for hosting, so it's nothing strange.

 

I'm interested in DRACO. Though, I'm not too sure about it anymore if it can't do anything to latent infections since that's what I would use it for. How much does 1g cost?



⌛⇒ current fundraiser: B.A.S.E Victor @ OpenCures

#23 Hip

  • Guest
  • 738 posts
  • 255
  • Location:UK

Posted 14 May 2020 - 02:32 PM

I was shocked to see the link you gave. Chronic diseases like diabetes, cancer, even asthma linked to virus?????

 

Is the https://sites.google...kedtopathogens/  source genuine? I thought chronic disease has nothing to do with virus! Stroke also link to virus!!!!???

 

Each disease-pathogen association listed on that website contains references to a published studies (the references are in the little green symbols). So everything on that website is backed up by published references. 

 

 

For every chronic disease, researchers are always searching for infectious pathogens in the diseased tissue, or in the dtysfunctioning organs. It is an active area of research. There are many thousands of studies which have linked viruses, bacteria and other pathogens to chronic diseases. 

 

 

If you think about what might cause a chronic disease, remember that in science, for every effect there must be a cause. When a previously young and health person is hit by a chronic disease like say multiple sclerosis, there must be a material cause for that disease (unless you believe in non-scientific explanations like bad karma, which I do not). There are only a limited number of causal factors that we know which might trigger a non-genetic disease, and these are:

  • Chemical toxins (man-made or naturally-occurring)
  • Various radiations (UV light, cosmic background radiation, etc)
  • Infectious pathogens (viruses, bacteria, fungi, protozoa and archaea)
  • Lifestyle factors like diet, exercise, and stress
Some diseases have been linked to environmental toxins as risk factors; but chronic diseases existed long before the industrial revolution and the modern era where we are exposed to more chemicals. Thus chemical toxins cannot be the full story. And lifestyle factors only have a limited effect in preventing disease, because many healthy-living people are hit by chronic diseases; it's not just the smokers and drinkers who get disease.
 
So this leaves pathogens as a major causal factor that may explain a lot of chronic disease. 

 

 

 

I am surprised that so few people in the longevity community have heard of the link between everyday pathogens and chronic disease. Pathogens may be an important factor that underlies shortened healthspan and premature deterioration of health.


Edited by Hip, 14 May 2020 - 02:49 PM.


#24 Hip

  • Guest
  • 738 posts
  • 255
  • Location:UK

Posted 14 May 2020 - 02:45 PM

It's important to note that on the same website, there's a mention of Professor Paul W. Ewald asserting that many chronic diseases may well be cause by persistent low-level infections. Keyword is may. It's a theory of his. It doesn't mean that it causes the diseases. Though, we may well in the future find out that certain diseases are caused by latent viruses.

 

It's not just a theory of Prof Paul Ewald: thousands of other medical researchers are actively investigating the link between infectious pathogens are chronic diseases, otherwise there would not be so many published studies in this area.

 

If you take any disease, like say type 1 diabetes, and put it into a Google PubMed search, and also include the search term: virus OR bacteria, you can often find dozens of studies linking that disease to certain pathogens. As this Google search will demonstrate. You can try this for other common diseases too.

 

 

 

We already know that for example, just from wikipedia, we find out that EBV is associated with "lymphoproliferative diseases such as Burkitt lymphoma, hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis, and Hodgkin's lymphoma." Also, cancers like "gastric cancer and nasopharyngeal carcinoma."


In fact we now know that Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) is a proven cause of the cancer nasopharyngeal carcinoma. For a long time, studies found EBV was associated with nasopharyngeal carcinoma; but as we all know, association alone does not prove causation. But science has advanced, and it has now been proven that EBV does cause nasopharyngeal carcinoma. 

 

When science examines the disease-pathogen links, the first step is demonstrating an association between a chronic disease and a pathogen; the second more difficult step is proving that the pathogen actually causes the disease. 

 

So for all these diseases which are currently associated with specific pathogens, it will take some time before we know for sure whether the pathogen is actually the cause of the disease or not.

 

Ewald however points out that as time goes on, more and more diseases which were long associated with a pathogen are finally proven to be caused by that pathogen. So that is the trend.


Edited by Hip, 14 May 2020 - 02:55 PM.

  • Informative x 2

#25 soulprogrammer

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 154 posts
  • 14
  • Location:Singapore

Posted 15 May 2020 - 08:09 AM

  • Chemical toxins (man-made or naturally-occurring)
  • Various radiations (UV light, cosmic background radiation, etc)
  • Infectious pathogens (viruses, bacteria, fungi, protozoa and archaea)
  • Lifestyle factors like diet, exercise, and stress

 

What about gene inheritance?

 

I always thought Type 1 diabetes is due to gene inheritance? Virus??

 

Stroke for example, definitely not cause by virus/pathogen. Stroke is caused by cholesterol and blood vessels blockage. How can it caused by virus, almost impossible.

 

I am shocked to see cancer has to do with virus. I thought the science taught us cancer is linked to toxin, radioactive, diet like fast food/instant noodle/carcinogenic agent/preservative/MSG?

 

So Rife theory of cancer is caused by virus, which is laughable by many medical doctors, might be true. This actually make me think Rife machine might really works in the past.


I'm interested in DRACO. Though, I'm not too sure about it anymore if it can't do anything to latent infections since that's what I would use it for. How much does 1g cost?

 

DRACO definitely won't do anything to latent infections, like HIV, since latent infections does not product long dsRNA. 

 

1g about USD1600+ not including shipping. But the question remain, see my topic, is it legit to do personal trial?


  • like x 1

#26 soulprogrammer

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 154 posts
  • 14
  • Location:Singapore

Posted 15 May 2020 - 08:14 AM

This website is interesting, and it point out why he thinks DRACO might not work/risky.   

 

https://www.openphil...viral-treatment

 

  • For DRACOs to work, it would be necessary to deliver a lot of protein to cells (because DRACOs have to get into all cells that might be infected). Based on the mouse studies reported by Dr. Rider, it seems possible that a gram or more of DRACO would need to be administered to humans. The studies of Kizaka-Kondoh et al., (2009)7 used 5 mg protein per kg of mouse body weight. Delivering this large amount of protein could potentially trigger an immune response and cause anaphylactic shock, which can be fatal. Even human proteins used therapeutically exhibit this effect. In their review of immunological effects of therapeutic proteins, Kessler et al., (2006)8 write: “Most biopharmaceuticals induce immune responses (immunogenicity), which in many cases do not have clinically relevant consequences. However, in some cases the consequences can be severe and potentially lethal, causing a loss of efficacy of the drug or even worse, leading to autoimmunity to endogenous molecules.” Because DRACOs contain a non-human component, it is very likely that they will induce a strong immune response.
  •  
  • Viruses sometimes infect large numbers of cells. If DRACOs succeeded in killing all human cells with viruses in them, that could mean killing very large numbers of human cells, potentially posing substantial health risks.
  • Nature could have evolved a mechanism for triggering apoptosis in cells with dsRNA, but appears not do it naturally. One plausible explanation of this is that the costs of having this mechanism (i.e., cell death, possible off-target effects) would outweigh the benefits in most virus infections (eg., “colds”).
  •  
  • There is a risk that some cells may naturally have enough dsRNA that they could potentially be attacked by DRACO despite being healthy. The proteins used in the DRACO system are most strongly activated by long dsRNA which is intended to make the mechanism specific for viruses. However, short dsRNA of 11-16 nucleotides can bind to the dsRNA binding sites and activate the proteins under some conditions.9 Thus, a lot of testing would be required to ensure that there are not any “off-target” effects in humans. Because the presence of dsRNA is species-specific, mouse studies do not provide compelling insights about effects on humans.
  •  
  • Harmless viruses in cells could be targeted by DRACOs as well, posing additional risk (i.e., widespread cell death).

  • like x 1

#27 Hip

  • Guest
  • 738 posts
  • 255
  • Location:UK

Posted 15 May 2020 - 03:04 PM

What about gene inheritance?


Yes there are purely genetic diseases, like Huntington's disease.

But Ewald is talking about diseases which do not have a strong genetic component. The cause of a disease can be genetic or environmental, or a combination of the two (environmental means things like toxin exposure, pathogen exposure, diet and stress).

How do you work out whether a disease is mainly genetic or mainly environmental? That is achieved by looking at concordance rates: where you look at identical twins, and when one twin develops a disease, you observe whether the other twin also develops it. 
 
For a purely genetic disease, if one identical twin gets the disease, then the second twin will always get it too. But if the disease etiology involves environmental factors, then the second twin will often not get the disease. The chances that the second twin gets the disease is the concordance rate for that particular disease.

 

A 100% concordance rate means the disease is purely genetic, and 0% concordance rate means the disease is purely environment. Percentages in between mean the disease is a combination of genetic and environmental.
 
With lots diseases, the concordance rate is low, which shows that the disease is primarily environmental, and not genetic. So we know for lots of diseases, factors such as toxins and pathogens must play a key role.
 
 

 

I always thought Type 1 diabetes is due to gene inheritance? Virus??

 
The concordance rate for type 1 diabetes is just 34%, which shows T1D is mainly caused by environmental factors. Ref: here
 
Type 1 diabetes has long been associated with a common virus called coxsackievirus B4. This virus can infect and destroy the insulin-producing cells of the pancreas. See this paper for example. So there is an easy to understand mechanism by which coxsackievirus B4 might cause diabetes.

 

 

 

Stroke for example, definitely not cause by virus/pathogen. Stroke is caused by cholesterol and blood vessels blockage. How can it caused by virus, almost impossible.

 

Stroke is linked to being triggered by a new acute infection, like with influenzavirus. See this study.  

 

But chronic, persistent low-level infections with coxsackievirus B or echovirus are also linked to stroke

 

When you have persistent infections in the body, these cause the immune system to secrete a family of enzymes called MMP enzymes (matrix metalloproteinase). The role of MMP enzymes is to degrade and destroy connective tissue. Well, blood vessels are made of connective tissue, so you can see how the weakening of connective tissue by MMP enzymes released as a result of persistent infection might lead to increased stroke risk.
 


 

I am shocked to see cancer has to do with virus. I thought the science taught us cancer is linked to toxin, radioactive, diet like fast food/instant noodle/carcinogenic agent/preservative/MSG?
 
So Rife theory of cancer is caused by virus, which is laughable by many medical doctors, might be true. This actually make me think Rife machine might really works in the past.

 

Rife machines are pseudoscience: the idea you can destroy a pathogen in the body by targeting a resonant frequency and vibrating it to death using radio waves is complete nonsense.

 

However, it is certainly true that quite a few viruses are proven to cause cancer — and many more viruses have been associated with causing cancer (these viruses are found within the cancer tumors), but it has not yet been definitely proven that they are the cause of the cancer.

 

Prof Ewald gives an interesting video presentation on the link between infectious pathogens and cancer here.

 


Edited by Hip, 15 May 2020 - 03:13 PM.

  • Informative x 1

#28 Hip

  • Guest
  • 738 posts
  • 255
  • Location:UK

Posted 15 May 2020 - 04:41 PM

 

Viruses sometimes infect large numbers of cells. If DRACOs succeeded in killing all human cells with viruses in them, that could mean killing very large numbers of human cells, potentially posing substantial health risks.

 

Killing too many cells might be a potential risk factor if you took DRACO at the height of a major acute infection. 

 

But perhaps it might not be risky if you took DRACO away from any acute infection, just for the purpose of cleansing the body of any ongoing persistent low-level infections, rather than for targeting a major acute infection.

 

Killing too many cells might also be an issue in immune privileged organs like the brain, where you would not want to kill lots of neurons. I am not sure if DRACO can cross the blood-brain barrier though.


Edited by Hip, 15 May 2020 - 04:43 PM.


#29 soulprogrammer

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 154 posts
  • 14
  • Location:Singapore

Posted 16 May 2020 - 04:12 AM

Yes there are purely genetic diseases, like Huntington's disease.

But Ewald is talking about diseases which do not have a strong genetic component. The cause of a disease can be genetic or environmental, or a combination of the two (environmental means things like toxin exposure, pathogen exposure, diet and stress).

How do you work out whether a disease is mainly genetic or mainly environmental? That is achieved by looking at concordance rates: where you look at identical twins, and when one twin develops a disease, you observe whether the other twin also develops it. 
 
For a purely genetic disease, if one identical twin gets the disease, then the second twin will always get it too. But if the disease etiology involves environmental factors, then the second twin will often not get the disease. The chances that the second twin gets the disease is the concordance rate for that particular disease.

 

A 100% concordance rate means the disease is purely genetic, and 0% concordance rate means the disease is purely environment. Percentages in between mean the disease is a combination of genetic and environmental.
 
With lots diseases, the concordance rate is low, which shows that the disease is primarily environmental, and not genetic. So we know for lots of diseases, factors such as toxins and pathogens must play a key role.
 
 

 

 
The concordance rate for type 1 diabetes is just 34%, which shows T1D is mainly caused by environmental factors. Ref: here
 
Type 1 diabetes has long been associated with a common virus called coxsackievirus B4. This virus can infect and destroy the insulin-producing cells of the pancreas. See this paper for example. So there is an easy to understand mechanism by which coxsackievirus B4 might cause diabetes.

 

 

 

 

Stroke is linked to being triggered by a new acute infection, like with influenzavirus. See this study.  

 

But chronic, persistent low-level infections with coxsackievirus B or echovirus are also linked to stroke

 

When you have persistent infections in the body, these cause the immune system to secrete a family of enzymes called MMP enzymes (matrix metalloproteinase). The role of MMP enzymes is to degrade and destroy connective tissue. Well, blood vessels are made of connective tissue, so you can see how the weakening of connective tissue by MMP enzymes released as a result of persistent infection might lead to increased stroke risk.
 


 

 

Rife machines are pseudoscience: the idea you can destroy a pathogen in the body by targeting a resonant frequency and vibrating it to death using radio waves is complete nonsense.

 

However, it is certainly true that quite a few viruses are proven to cause cancer — and many more viruses have been associated with causing cancer (these viruses are found within the cancer tumors), but it has not yet been definitely proven that they are the cause of the cancer.

 

Prof Ewald gives an interesting video presentation on the link between infectious pathogens and cancer here.

 

 

 

Very informative! Do you have a medical degree, just curious to know?

 

BTW, why you think Rife machine is totally nonsense?

 

"the idea you can destroy a pathogen in the body by targeting a resonant frequency and vibrating it to death using radio waves is complete nonsense."

 

https://www.livescie...hake-death.html

Scientists may one day be able to destroy viruses in the same way that opera singers presumably shatter wine glasses. New research mathematically determined the frequencies at which simple viruses could be shaken to death.

"The capsid of a virus is something like the shell of a turtle," said physicist Otto Sankey of Arizona State University. "If the shell can be compromised [by mechanical vibrations], the virus can be inactivated."

so the idea of using resonant freq to kill virus is not crazy.



sponsored ad

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

#30 soulprogrammer

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 154 posts
  • 14
  • Location:Singapore

Posted 16 May 2020 - 04:19 AM

Killing too many cells might be a potential risk factor if you took DRACO at the height of a major acute infection. 

 

But perhaps it might not be risky if you took DRACO away from any acute infection, just for the purpose of cleansing the body of any ongoing persistent low-level infections, rather than for targeting a major acute infection.

 

Killing too many cells might also be an issue in immune privileged organs like the brain, where you would not want to kill lots of neurons. I am not sure if DRACO can cross the blood-brain barrier though.

 

Yes, killing too many cells at one go might be really risky and harmful to the body and your kidney/liver.

 

But we can take small doses of DRACO over a longer period, so slowly cleansing the body, and everyday killing a "small" amount of infected cells. Then perhaps in 3 months or so, the body is almost complete free of infect cells except latent virus, which DRACO will not be able to target.

 

So does that actually imply DRACO can actually prolong human lifespan? I mean assuming that it works and not harmful to human.

 

I can see the future like DRACO for first time = 6 months

DRACO treatment for subsequent years = 1 week/year for maintenance.

Human can then live virus free with super healthy body, with close to zero chronic disease.  

Lifespan of human increase to 120. 

 

Then 3D printing of organ begins to commercialize in 2040. 

Lifespan of human increase to 240.


Edited by soulprogrammer, 16 May 2020 - 04:20 AM.






Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: draco, test, medicine

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users