davidl@tekig5.UUCP (David Levadie) (08/10/85)
We've had antibiotics to combat bacterial infections for HOW long now? There seems to be virtually NO bacterial infection which doesn't yield to SOME sort of chemotherapy. But there seems to be virtually no viral infection that DOES yield to ANY sort of chemotherapy! All that's available is vaccination; once the damned thing gets hold of you, you better hope your immune system can handle it, 'cause if not... And the inventory of pathogenic viruses is becoming MORE and more interesting. Go ahead, get upset about AIDS - How would you like to see an AIDS virus that DOES spread like the common cold? Or a rabies virus? And I don't hear any screaming and yelling about it. Look at rabies, for instance. How long has it been with us? I think there's finally been a recorded case of a rabies victim surviving, in the U.S., under intensive care. Admittedly the problem is difficult; since viruses are such a simple life form, it's difficult to find a means of attacking them without also attacking the host. But it is just appalling to me that so much noise is made about similarly difficult problems; cancer, multiple sclerosis, you name it - SOME of which are often attributable to viruses, and others of which may in fact be due to viruses with extremely long incubation periods - and the medical profession doesn't seem to even care. People make an appalling joke, saying "Herpes is for life". I would expect the medical profession, in THIS day and age, to find that excruciatingly embarrassing! If you get chickenpox as a youngster, you may think you've gotten over it, but the herpes virus which causes chickenpox may give you shingles in your old age. One has to wonder how long we have before the inevitable, particularly with some of the rumors I hear about research in biogenetic warfare. I believe the Wall Street Journal published some articles a while back claiming that that Russians were attempting to engineer a flu virus which would produce cobra venom. That may be a little far-fetched in reality, but it's certainly not beyond the nonexistent morality of some of the nerds in the scientific community to attempt it, if they could get the funding (no need to debate whether there's anyone amoral enough to fund it, I hope). Something like that gets loose, you think the vaccine peddlers are going to be able to get the stuff out in time to vaccinate THEMSELVES, even? Anyone who cares to flame at me for putting this in net.general is welcome to a dose of cobra venom, sans virus, direct from my laboratory. You might direct your responses to net.med, however; there's actually a couple of MD's out there among the compunerds.
sdyer@bbncc5.UUCP (Steve Dyer) (08/11/85)
> Admittedly the problem is difficult; since viruses are such a simple > life form, it's difficult to find a means of attacking them > without also attacking the host. But it is just appalling to me that > so much noise is made about similarly difficult problems; cancer, > multiple sclerosis, you name it - SOME of which are often attributable > to viruses, and others of which may in fact be due to viruses with extremely > long incubation periods - and the medical profession doesn't seem to even > care. People make an appalling joke, saying "Herpes is for life". I would > expect the medical profession, in THIS day and age, to find that > excruciatingly embarrassing! If you get chickenpox as a youngster, > you may think you've gotten over it, but the herpes virus which causes > chickenpox may give you shingles in your old age. I've exerpted the parts of this guy's posting which make the most sense responding to, inasmuchas most of it reads like an acute panic reaction to a diagnosis of genital herpes. A couple of points of clarification: chickenpox and shingles are both caused by herpes zoster, and not by the herpes simplex viruses. Also, there are no human cancers which are yet proven to be caused by a virus, with the possible exception of AIDS-related Kaposi's sarcoma, but the mechanism of the development of KS in people with AIDS is still unelucidated. The "noises" about viral contributions to other diseases such as MS and juvenile diabetes are actually early leaks of scientific investigation in progress, so it is simply silly to claim that the "medical profession doesn't care." He also betrays a rather peculiar attitude towards those who practice medicine, as if they were selling something "guaranteed", rather than the unfortunate truth even in this day and age, namely, that they are people who try to use their limited knowledge to help people get well, or barring that, remain as comfortable as possible. Research is always trying to expand the horizon of what is known so that it can be safely and effectively applied in medical care, but there will always be gaps in our knowledge. "Acute embarassment?" Hardly--there is no reason whatsoever to be embarassed. Frustrated and challenged, maybe. As he says, viruses are a particularly difficult nut to crack, because their actions are intimately tied up with the ordinary expression of genetic information in the cell; they don't really "live" on their own, so it is much harder to discover and produce the kinds of "magic bullets" which have been the hallmark of modern therapy for other infectious diseases. Also, the herpes viruses seem to hide very well from the body's immune system by residing in the spinal ganglia inbetween flareups. But there have been a number of effective drugs introduced in the last 15 years which have anti-viral activity in very specific situations: idoxuridine in corneal herpes simplex, vidarabine in corneal herpes and herpes simplex encephalitis, and most recently, acyclovir for these indications and the symptomatic treatment of genital herpes as well. Amantadine is effective in the prophylaxis and treatment of influenza A infection, and we can expect more progress on these fronts as research continues. No one promised it would be easy. -- /Steve Dyer {decvax,linus,ima,ihnp4}!bbncca!sdyer sdyer@bbnccv.ARPA
geb@cadre.ARPA (Gordon E. Banks) (08/11/85)
The posting on lack of treatment for viral infections (besides immunization, an enormous success of scientific medicine) betrays a rather foolish (but common) attitude toward nature, science and medicine. The universe was not fashioned for the sole convenience of man, and impatient foot stamping when it refuses to fall under his control is silly. Why should medicine be embarressed? Should physicists be embarressed because there aren't nuclear fusion reactors? Because there aren't any warp drives? Come off it! What are you contributing to solve the problems besides a lot of hot air?
sean@ukma.UUCP (Sean Casey) (08/12/85)
In article <191@tekig5.UUCP> davidl@tekig5.UUCP (David Levadie) writes: >... >any screaming and yelling about it. Look at rabies, for instance. How >long has it been with us? I think there's finally been a recorded >case of a rabies victim surviving, in the U.S., under intensive care. Uh, rabies is quite curable. A friend of mine was once bitten by a dog that turned out to have rabies. She got a LOT of shots. -- - Sean Casey UUCP: sean@ukma.UUCP or - Department of Mathematics {cbosgd,anlams,hasmed}!ukma!sean - University of Kentucky ARPA: ukma!sean@ANL-MCS.ARPA
abc@brl-tgr.ARPA (Brint Cooper ) (08/12/85)
The referenced article and a followup discuss the difficulty modern medicine has in fighting virus invections with other than vaccines for prevention. MS and juvenile-onset diabetes were mentioned as examples of diseases which MAY be virus-related although research has not yet provided conclusive evidence. It's more complex than that. There's other strong evidence that diseases such as MS and juvenile-onset diabetes may be autoimmune diseases -- those caused when the body's immune system produces antibodies which attack certain of its own tissues. Rheumatoid arthritis, pernicious anemia, myasthenia gravis, and lupus (SLE) are examples of autoimmune diseases. I feel that cracking the mystery of cancer will also illuminate causes of and successful treatments for AIDS, virus infections, autoimmune disease. It's a tall order. Brint
werner@aecom.UUCP (Craig Werner) (08/13/85)
Since viruses exist as intracellular parasites, it is very tricky to treat them without killing the cells they infect -- but that's only once you have the disease. Modern Medicine is not virtually helpless against Viruses. It has one very good weapon -- Vaccines. Which is why you don't have to worry too much about: Smallpox, Measles, Rubella, Diptheria, Pertussus, Typhus, Polio, etc, etc, etc... But vaccines are only good if given before the disease is contracted. To all on the net: are all your vaccines current? How about your children's? -- Craig Werner !philabs!aecom!werner "The world is just a straight man for you sometimes"
roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) (08/14/85)
>We've had antibiotics to combat bacterial infections for HOW long now? About 50 years. Penicillin was just starting to become available in the early 1940's, sulfa drugs were around for a while before that. > [...] there seems to be virtually no viral infection that DOES yield to > ANY sort of chemotherapy! All that's available is vaccination; That's right; *all* we can do is vaccinate children so they no longer contract polio, smallpox, mumps, measles, german measles (all viral infections) not to mention diptheria, tetanus and whooping cough. Since nobody gets these diseases any more, finding chemotherapy for them is not a high priority. Smallpox, by the way, is one of the few viruses for which chemotherapy has been moderately successful, but erradication of the virus was even better. > Go ahead, get upset about AIDS - How would you like to see an AIDS virus > that DOES spread like the common cold? Or a rabies virus? And I don't hear > any screaming and yelling about it. Where have you been lately? Actually, the media is doing the screaming and yelling. The scientific community has been quietly doing the research and has identified and characterized the AIDS virus within the space of a year, thanks to the new biotechnology that emerged from basic research. > I think there's finally been a recorded case of a rabies victim > surviving, in the U.S., under intensive care. You miss the point. Almost nobody bitten by a rabid animal contracts rabies anymore, thanks to the administration of the vaccine. Pre-Pasteur, 100% of these people contracted the disease and died. > Admittedly the problem is difficult; since viruses are such a simple life > form, it's difficult to find a means of attacking them without also > attacking the host. A surprisingly lucid observation. This is indeed the major problem with fighting viral infections. Antibiotics work *because* bacteria have a sufficiently complicated metabolism. You can feed a person erythromycin (which screws up bacterial protein synthesis) without killing the patient because a person's protein making machinery is sufficiently different from the bacteria's that it is not affected by the drug. Viruses don't have any metabolism of their own; they are parasites which rely on the host's metabolic machinery to grow. Since they share our metabolism, it is difficult to find a way to interfere with their growth without also killing the patient. The most success in viral chemotherapy has come with viruses that are sufficiently complex that they supply some of their own enzymes, which are different enough from the host's to be a possible target for chemical attack. > But it is just appalling to me that so much noise is made about similarly > difficult problems [...] and the medical profession doesn't seem to even > care. This is such a patently untrue statment, I don't know where to begin to argue with it. You seem to imply that the noise is proportional to the effort. Herpes and AIDS are two of the hottest fields in medical research. > One has to wonder how long we have before the inevitable, particularly > with some of the rumors I hear about research in biogenetic warfare. I > believe the Wall Street Journal published some articles a while back > claiming that that Russians were attempting to engineer a flu virus which > would produce cobra venom. That may be a little far-fetched in reality, It would actually be rather trivial to make such a virus, given existing biotechnology. BTW, I wonder why you consider the WSJ to be a good source of scientific information. They certainly are a respectable publication, but to keep up with scientific progress, I would suggest the N.Y. Times science section (every Tuesday) or Scientific American. Both are readable by the "intelligent layman" and are readily available at most newsstands and libraries. > but it's certainly not beyond the nonexistent morality of some of the > nerds in the scientific community to attempt it, if they could get the > funding (no need to debate whether there's anyone amoral enough to fund > it, I hope). It's the United States government that funds such projects, and it was the academic community that took the government to court recently and won an injunction against the construction of a P4 (highest level of biological containment) laboratory at Fort Dugway, Utah, that the Army wanted to use for "testing" toxic biological aerosols. > Anyone who cares to flame at me for putting this in net.general is > welcome to a dose of cobra venom, sans virus, direct from my laboratory. > You might direct your responses to net.med, however; there's actually > a couple of MD's out there among the compunerds. Consider yourself flamed, I won't waste the space. But I left your last paragraph in so that everybody who reads net.med can be equally offended. Unfortunately, for all the random screaming and yelling in your article, I can't figure out what point you are trying to make. Obviously, you have some gripe with the medical community, but just what it is I can't figure out. -- Roy Smith <allegra!phri!roy> System Administrator, Public Health Research Institute 455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016
tim@cithep.UucP (Tim Smith ) (08/14/85)
Another point to Tektronix in their continuing battle with AT&T to post the
most inappropriate things to net.general. Has anyone been keeping score?
The different game plans of the two teams are quite interesting. Tektronix
seems to go for the diverse approach, while AT&T specializes in the "Item
for sale in New Jersey" posting.
:-) :-) :-)
--
Tim Smith
ihnp4!{wlbr!callan,cithep}!timsdyer@bbncc5.UUCP (Steve Dyer) (08/14/85)
> Uh, rabies is quite curable. A friend of mine was once bitten by a dog that > turned out to have rabies. She got a LOT of shots. Rabies is, for all intents and purposes, fatal once the virus has invaded the nervous system. Your friend was probably treated immediately after the bite with rabies antiserum followed by a three weeks of daily vaccine injections. The whole point of this aggressive treatment is to neutralize any rabies virus through the use of antiserum (made from horses, I think) and to then cause the production of one's own antibodies through vaccination. Your friend (luckily) never had rabies, and was never "cured" of it. -- /Steve Dyer {decvax,linus,ima,ihnp4}!bbncca!sdyer sdyer@bbnccv.ARPA
john@frog.UUCP (John Woods) (08/14/85)
> In article <191@tekig5.UUCP> davidl@tekig5.UUCP (David Levadie) writes: > >... > >any screaming and yelling about it. Look at rabies, for instance. How > >long has it been with us? I think there's finally been a recorded > >case of a rabies victim surviving, in the U.S., under intensive care. > > Uh, rabies is quite curable. A friend of mine was once bitten by a dog that > turned out to have rabies. She got a LOT of shots. > Rabies, per se, is nearly incurable. However, the virus is quite a slow starter, so that if you are bitten by a rabid animal and start the shots immediately, you will be immune by the time the rabies virus really gets going. Once the virus gets going, however, it is very dangerous. I believe that the total of survived cases is up to about 4, worldwide. -- John Woods, Charles River Data Systems, Framingham MA, (617) 626-1101 ...!decvax!frog!john, ...!mit-eddie!jfw, jfw%mit-ccc@MIT-XX.ARPA
roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) (08/14/85)
kitty!larry (Larry Lippman) says: > Various governments (the U.S. included) have been quietly but seriously > investigating the creation of *racially-specific* microorganisms, including > viruses which will affect only persons of a specific race. I am certain that > all of you have heard of racially-specific diseases such as sickle cell > anemia, Tay-Sachs disease, etc. The two examples you give are genetic disorders, not infectious diseases. However, I have no doubt that the U.S. government is funding this type of research. We occasionally joke about submitting just such a research proposal as a sure-fire way to get funding. Now, if we could just come up with a virus which only attacks the idiots in the government and the military that insist we need more guns, tanks, planes, ships, bombs and missles (not to mention chemical and biological weapons), we could all go back to doing whatever it is we were put here to do. -- Roy Smith <allegra!phri!roy> System Administrator, Public Health Research Institute 455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (08/15/85)
In article <401@phri.UUCP> roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) writes: > >> Go ahead, get upset about AIDS - How would you like to see an AIDS virus >> that DOES spread like the common cold? Or a rabies virus? And I don't hear >> any screaming and yelling about it. > > Where have you been lately? Actually, the media is doing the >screaming and yelling. The scientific community has been quietly doing the >research and has identified and characterized the AIDS virus within the >space of a year, thanks to the new biotechnology that emerged from basic >research. > Exactly! And using that same biotechnology I expect to see a vaccine(and *perhaps* a cure) for AIDS in another year, or two at most! > > This is such a patently untrue statment, I don't know where to >begin to argue with it. You seem to imply that the noise is proportional >to the effort. Herpes and AIDS are two of the hottest fields in medical >research. > Oh, and cancer as well! -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) {trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen
abc@brl-tgr.ARPA (Brint Cooper ) (08/18/85)
In article <2050@ukma.UUCP> sean@ukma.UUCP (Sean Casey) writes: >In article <191@tekig5.UUCP> davidl@tekig5.UUCP (David Levadie) writes: > >Uh, rabies is quite curable. A friend of mine was once bitten by a dog that >turned out to have rabies. She got a LOT of shots. > > >-- > >- Sean Casey UUCP: sean@ukma.UUCP or >- Department of Mathematics {cbosgd,anlams,hasmed}!ukma!sean >- University of Kentucky ARPA: ukma!sean@ANL-MCS.ARPA Sorry, Sean. What your friend got was a vaccine to PREVENT rabies, much like vaccines that prevent polio or other virus infections. I'm willing to bet that your friend showed no rabies symptoms. At present, there is a patient at The Johns Hopkins Hospital who might have contracted rabies. Beyond life support, there is nothing to be done. Brint
peter@baylor.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (08/19/85)
A much more reprehensible result of modern research priorities is the total lack
of a cure for ACNE. Bill the Cat died of this horrible disease, which IS
bacterial in origin! Who's next?
--
Peter (Made in Australia) da Silva
UUCP: ...!shell!neuro1!{hyd-ptd,baylor,datafac}!peter
MCI: PDASILVA; CIS: 70216,1076