67 replies to this topic

[Hip]

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

 

BTW, why you think Rife machine is totally nonsense?

 

No medical degree, but I started reading a lot about viruses and other pathogens after a viral infection I caught triggered the life-changing diseases of myalgic encephalomyelitis / chronic fatigue syndrome. That's when I began to learn that viruses are not just suspected to cause ME/CFS, but many other chronic diseases.

 

 

I saw the work by Tsen et al on shaking a virus until it shatters that you quoted when it was first published, and thought it was interesting. This approach does work for viruses, which have a rigid shell that can resonate. It would not work for bacteria, which do not have a rigid shell. Nor for fungi or protozoa, which do not have rigid shells.

 

However, the resonant frequency used by Tsen to shatter viruses is high, hundreds of GHz, whereas I believe Rife machines only go up to a few MHz. So Rife frequencies are around 10,000 times too low to work. Also, even if Rife machines could go up to hundreds of GHz, I am not sure it would work, as Rife machines output radiowaves or oscillating magnetic fields, whereas Tsen uses a laser light, pulsed at GHz frequencies, to resonate and shatter viral shells.

 

The limitation of Tsen's system is that laser light cannot penetrate deeply into the body, so it's really more suitable for killing viruses in donated blood than it is for destroying viruses in humans.

 

Furthermore, Tsen's system would not work for latent viruses hiding inside human cells, as these no longer have any shell, but are just the viral genome that has been incorporated into the cell. 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

Indeed, you could take it slowly, using small doses of DRACO so that you do not kill too many cells at once.

Edited by Hip, 16 May 2020 - 04:42 AM.

[soulprogrammer]

Anyone here keen to do self trial on DRACO, provided it is allowed. If so, we can group buy and share the cost? 

[kurt9]

 

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).

 

 

Anyone else care to say something about this? I find it credible. If so, then we don't get DRACO as the majic bullet and we're back to the standard processes of increasing immune resistance (e.g. Greg Fahy's TRIIM and the fusion portion of Turnbuckle's mitochondrial fission/fusion routine).
 

[hotbit]

@soulprogrammer & @Hip - thank you for the above discussion and links!

I'm not a virologist nor biochemist and it's been difficult to get any grasp of DRACO for me.

Some people are hyping DRACO as some huge breakthrough, and on the other end Dr Rider has being very quite about the project for the past almost 10 years, no progress took place, and there is very little or no in-depth analysis or interest on Internet.
 

It seems DRACO is kind of a similar thing to a project of sending a potential manned rocket to Pluto. There is a large number of uncharted territories and unknowns, the head of the project is difficult to get in touch with, whether for public or investors, and other parties interested in space exploration focus rather on travels to the Moon or Mars.

Personally, I have decided to not pay any attention to DRACO anymore. I cannot do any research in the field myself, and Internet is only buzzing the hype based on the initial, very partial experiments.
 

[Kimer Med]

Kimer Med is working on replicating the original results with DRACO, along with testing against SARS-CoV-2, to be followed by testing in mice and then clinical trials.

 

If you'd like to follow our work, consider subscribing to our email list:

 

https://kimermed.co.nz/landing

 

If anyone has questions about DRACO, I can try to answer them.

 

[Sdescon]

@soulprogrammer & @Hip - thank you for the above discussion and links!

I'm not a virologist nor biochemist and it's been difficult to get any grasp of DRACO for me.

Some people are hyping DRACO as some huge breakthrough, and on the other end Dr Rider has being very quite about the project for the past almost 10 years, no progress took place, and there is very little or no in-depth analysis or interest on Internet.
 

It seems DRACO is kind of a similar thing to a project of sending a potential manned rocket to Pluto. There is a large number of uncharted territories and unknowns, the head of the project is difficult to get in touch with, whether for public or investors, and other parties interested in space exploration focus rather on travels to the Moon or Mars.

Personally, I have decided to not pay any attention to DRACO anymore. I cannot do any research in the field myself, and Internet is only buzzing the hype based on the initial, very partial experiments.
 

 

I agree. DRACO is a very interesting case. Asides from difficulties finding funding, I really want to see criticisms aimed at its mechanism of action, absorption/availability/kinetics, required dosage, possible toxicities, etc etc. Scientific criticism usually tells us what went wrong or the limitations of an agent, and what work still needs to be done for the agent to be useful. It is a fact that things that work in a test tube or model organisms do not always translate to efficacy in vivo in humans. Unfortunately, I am able to find very little of this kind of information regarding DRACO. Obviously the market for this agent exists and should be huge (ie COVID 19, HIV, HSV, VSV, CMV, etc etc). If DRACO works as hyped, then this would be a huge leap in our toolbox against viral diseases, especially latent ones which are notoriously difficult to eradicate. Reality is however always more nuanced and there are always limitations that damped the initial hype. I really wish proper studies could be done to find out.  
 

[Sdescon]

I agree. DRACO is a very interesting case. Asides from difficulties finding funding, I really want to see criticisms aimed at its mechanism of action, absorption/availability/kinetics, required dosage, possible toxicities, etc etc. Scientific criticism usually tells us what went wrong or the limitations of an agent, and what work still needs to be done for the agent to be useful. It is a fact that things that work in a test tube or model organisms do not always translate to efficacy in vivo in humans. Unfortunately, I am able to find very little of this kind of information regarding DRACO. Obviously the market for this agent exists and should be huge (ie COVID 19, HIV, HSV, VSV, CMV, etc etc). If DRACO works as hyped, then this would be a huge leap in our toolbox against viral diseases, especially latent ones which are notoriously difficult to eradicate. Reality is however always more nuanced and there are always limitations that damped the initial hype. I really wish proper studies could be done to find out.  
 

 

Adding to this, and after reading some criticism posted on https://www.openphil...viral-treatment link, I think toxicity and kinetics studies on DRACO would be an excellent way to build a DRACO like drug that actually would partially work after a lot of modification. If the delivery of the protein is difficult, try different delivery vehicles or techniques. If the protein causes allergy, change the structure or figure out a protocol to minimize this (ie using Tocilizumab or prophylactic corticosteroids + histamine 1 and 2 inhibitor due to cytokine release syndrome while undergoing CAR-T or TCR type therapies). If the therapy kills too many cells or kills the wrong cells, make it targeted or delayed release or any other huge number of things. Develop an antidote that denatures the DRACO therapeutic or stops it in case of some other side effect. There exist very toxic treatments such as chemotherapies that are a last resort to many critically sick people, and perhaps DRACO could then be limited to highly severe viral infections as a last resort. All this need studies, even negative ones, which would teach us the way forward.

[Kimer Med]

I agree. DRACO is a very interesting case. Asides from difficulties finding funding, I really want to see criticisms aimed at its mechanism of action, absorption/availability/kinetics, required dosage, possible toxicities, etc etc. Scientific criticism usually tells us what went wrong or the limitations of an agent, and what work still needs to be done for the agent to be useful. It is a fact that things that work in a test tube or model organisms do not always translate to efficacy in vivo in humans. Unfortunately, I am able to find very little of this kind of information regarding DRACO. Obviously the market for this agent exists and should be huge (ie COVID 19, HIV, HSV, VSV, CMV, etc etc). If DRACO works as hyped, then this would be a huge leap in our toolbox against viral diseases, especially latent ones which are notoriously difficult to eradicate. Reality is however always more nuanced and there are always limitations that damped the initial hype. I really wish proper studies could be done to find out.  
 

 

We already know quite a bit from the published research. For example, we know that DRACO worked with 3 different viruses in mice, not just in test tubes.

 

Any serious critiques should be backed by studies -- which is exactly what we're now actively doing.

 

 

Adding to this, and after reading some criticism posted on https://www.openphil...viral-treatment link, I think toxicity and kinetics studies on DRACO would be an excellent way to build a DRACO like drug that actually would partially work after a lot of modification. If the delivery of the protein is difficult, try different delivery vehicles or techniques. If the protein causes allergy, change the structure or figure out a protocol to minimize this (ie using Tocilizumab or prophylactic corticosteroids + histamine 1 and 2 inhibitor due to cytokine release syndrome while undergoing CAR-T or TCR type therapies). If the therapy kills too many cells or kills the wrong cells, make it targeted or delayed release or any other huge number of things. Develop an antidote that denatures the DRACO therapeutic or stops it in case of some other side effect. There exist very toxic treatments such as chemotherapies that are a last resort to many critically sick people, and perhaps DRACO could then be limited to highly severe viral infections as a last resort. All this need studies, even negative ones, which would teach us the way forward.

 

The write-up you linked is both biased and badly informed. I've been tempted to write a rebuttal for a while now; maybe the time has come.

 

You make some good points: drug weaknesses often have straightforward workarounds, once they're identified. The only way to know is to do studies, which is what we're doing.

 

One thing we already know is that DRACO appears to be very nontoxic, which makes sense, since it's a protein made from two proteins that already exist in every cell in the body, as opposed to being a small-molecule drug, where toxicity is often a Big Problem.

 

Previous work also demonstrated that the existing delivery mechanism using transduction tags is very effective. Whether it will adequately reach every tissue needed for every viral illness is still something to be investigated, but there's good experimental evidence to suggest that it won't be a problem.

[Sdescon]

I agree and think you guys should post a detailed rebuttal regarding that link. It's awesome that you are doing some work on this, and we definitely need something broad spectrum to tackle both our short term and long term problems. Short term we could tackle current viral diseases, and more long term we could be far better ready to fight novel viral pandemics that have not appeared yet. Even if an initial agent may not work as well, having an entirely novel mechanism and drug class is extremely important.

[Kimer Med]

I agree and think you guys should post a detailed rebuttal regarding that link. It's awesome that you are doing some work on this, and we definitely need something broad spectrum to tackle both our short term and long term problems. Short term we could tackle current viral diseases, and more long term we could be far better ready to fight novel viral pandemics that have not appeared yet. Even if an initial agent may not work as well, having an entirely novel mechanism and drug class is extremely important.

 

I've started a rebuttal here: https://forum.kimerm...-against-draco/

 

It might take me a while to address the whole article, but it's a start.

[Kimer Med]

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. 

 

The reason Rider abandoned DRACO is because he was unable to secure enough additional funding to keep his work going.

 

 

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).

 

DRACO actually works on negative-sense ssRNA viruses, too. For example, Influenza H1N1 is a (-)ssRNA virus.

 

 

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?

 

SARS-CoV-2 is (+)ssRNA, with an envelope. That's the same as Dengue virus, which Rider found DRACO was effective against -- so there's good reason to be optimistic here.

 

We are currently "funding limited," as they say. If you'd like to help push this along, let me know.

 

 

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.

 

I believe the versions of DRACO tested by Rider all cross the BBB. However, it may be possible for us develop versions of VTose which do not.

 

 

Anyone here keen to do self trial on DRACO, provided it is allowed. If so, we can group buy and share the cost? 

 

Self-testing is legally allowed, AFAIK, as is importing strange proteins from foreign lands (other than illegal drugs, of course). Probably a bad idea, though, and I wouldn't recommend it.

 

 

Anyone else care to say something about this? I find it credible. If so, then we don't get DRACO as the majic bullet and we're back to the standard processes of increasing immune resistance (e.g. Greg Fahy's TRIIM and the fusion portion of Turnbuckle's mitochondrial fission/fusion routine).
 

 

I've completed my rebuttal to that write-up: https://forum.kimerm...-against-draco/

[soulprogrammer]

The reason Rider abandoned DRACO is because he was unable to secure enough additional funding to keep his work going.

 

 

 

DRACO actually works on negative-sense ssRNA viruses, too. For example, Influenza H1N1 is a (-)ssRNA virus.

 

 

 

SARS-CoV-2 is (+)ssRNA, with an envelope. That's the same as Dengue virus, which Rider found DRACO was effective against -- so there's good reason to be optimistic here.

 

We are currently "funding limited," as they say. If you'd like to help push this along, let me know.

 

 

 

I believe the versions of DRACO tested by Rider all cross the BBB. However, it may be possible for us develop versions of VTose which do not.

 

 

 

Self-testing is legally allowed, AFAIK, as is importing strange proteins from foreign lands (other than illegal drugs, of course). Probably a bad idea, though, and I wouldn't recommend it.

 

 

 

I've completed my rebuttal to that write-up: https://forum.kimerm...-against-draco/

I would suggest you can do a crowdfunding to raise fund for your research.

[YOLF]

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?

 

I'd be more than happy to take a course of it and see how I respond. I have psoriasis. I don't manage it with pharmaceuticals as I have DNA test results for adverse affects to the first line group pf drugs that doctors would use and the doctors, FDA, or insurance companies don't recognize the DNA test or the research or something like that.

[YOLF]

 

• 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.

 

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?

 

 

Nothing has ever stopped this community from doing personal trials, lol... It's not scheduled by the DEA and it isn't likely to be analogous to anything that is, so you're pretty much safe in terms of the law. All right to try laws really do is force insurance companies to pay for things and drug companies to make things available. Not everything you're looking for is likely to be available, but if enough of us get interested, it usually makes it's way to us. Sometimes there are other reasons why things become available, so availability does not always mean community interest.

 

Viruses can DEFINITELY be the cause of chronic disease. It's just that things are most often a few orders of complexity rather than simply black and white.

 

For example, in the case of Diabetes Type I, the gene might be one that allows a particular pathogen to behave in such a way that causes an autoimmune disease of the pancreas which leads to the loss of pancreatic Beta cells which prevent the body from producing it's own insulin. It may be further complicated by an environmental element such as a toxin or allergen which together with the virus and genetic mutation produce the symptoms that we call disease.

 

Now let's look at Syphilis. The primary disease occurs and it appears to resolve, though it may still be transmitted. Later in life little spots start to appear, and later still insanity sets in. But throw some penicillin at it and suddenly the secondary and tertiary forms of the virus disappear. Senility, if we hadn't found penicillin, might still be confused with dementia if penicillin hadn't been found (actually, developed, it had been rare unicorn drug for the privileged until it was developed to help us win WW2). I hate to say it, but maybe WW3 would be a good thing if it lead to developing things like DRACO.

 

I suspect that the reasons for not pursuing it are the commonality of some of the viruses. Almost everyone has EBV, but only some develop disease from it. So how is it spread and can it be stopped. In many applications, it may be found that vaccines or gene therapy are ultimately necessary. We may only have others because they are congenital (though they may not produce symptoms immediately) and regular testing might be needed in some families to ensure they haven't been reinfected. DRACOs could wind up being a massively expensive undertaking. If they're safe, though, they could just add it to the water supply or give it to people regularly. Maybe we could get a gene therapy to produce DRACOs.

 

I guess DRACOs are a complicated thing, though not so much that we shouldn't develop them. Imagine all of the so called autoimmune disorders that could benefit
 

[soulprogrammer]

Each person need how many g to test?

 

This DRACO has such a huge potential, and if it really works, can change the landscape of medicine overnight. I wonder why no one is doing personal trial? You can order the drug online.

[Kimer Med]

I would suggest you can do a crowdfunding to raise fund for your research.

 

Good idea. 

[Kimer Med]

Kimer Med has just launched a crowdfunding campaign to raise capital for the next round of testing:

 

https://donate.kimer...g-viral-disease

 

We need your support!

[hotbit]

Each person need how many g to test?

 

This DRACO has such a huge potential, and if it really works, can change the landscape of medicine overnight. I wonder why no one is doing personal trial? You can order the drug online.

 

So have you ordered yourself? And where from?

 

Can you kindly share your experiences? Thanks.

[soulprogrammer]

So have you ordered yourself? And where from?

 

Can you kindly share your experiences? Thanks.

 

"We have no problem producing 1g or more protein products based on our E. coli platform. Prior to that, we may conduct a small-scale pilot to check the feasibility and yield level, as mentioned previously. By estimation, the pilot may take around $1,600/6 weeks (starting from gene synthesis). We'll quote for 1g production based on pilot results. Following production will be a lot faster (~4 weeks). "  from sinobiological

 

You can get it from  sinobiological.com

 

I didn't order it since no one want to do a bulk purchase.   

Kimer Med has just launched a crowdfunding campaign to raise capital for the next round of testing:

 

https://donate.kimer...g-viral-disease

 

We need your support!

 

Start a new thread will attract more readers. 

[soulprogrammer]

New research show DRACO working...

 

Sharti M, Esmaeili Gouvarchin Ghaleh H, Dorostkar R, Jalali Kondori B (July 28, 2020). "Double-Stranded RNA Activated Caspase Oligomerizer (DRACO): Design, Subcloning, and Antiviral Investigation". Journal of Applied Biotechnology Reports. Applied Virology Research Center, Baqiyatallah University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran (Articles in Press).

 

In July 2020, a paper from another independent research group about the effects of DRACO in vitro was published. According to the study, DRACO was nontoxic in uninfected mammalian cells, and cells infected with H1N1 influenza virus showed a "significant", dose-dependent level of apoptosis.  

 

https://en.wikipedia...ACO#cite_note-8

 

 

Introduction: Antiviral therapy is an alternative for viral infection control when the virus is identified. As antiviral therapy has effectively used basic science to create very efficient treatments for severe viral infections, it is one of the most promising virology aspects. In the present work, a novel broad-spectrum antiviral method, dubbed Double-stranded RNA (dsRNA) Activated Caspase Oligomerizer (DRACO) have been developed, which induces apoptosis in cells with viral dsRNA selectively to kill infected cells quickly with no damage to uninfected ones.
Materials and Methods: Following the design, development, expression, and purification of DRACO, influenza virus-infected MDCK and uninfected MDCK cells were treated with 40, 60, and 80 mg/L concentration of DRACO to study its potential antiviral activity. Then, TCID50 (50% Tissue Culture Infectious Dose) of the virus, together with the viability of cells, was measured.
Results: The findings of the present study showed that DRACO is nontoxic to uninfected MDCK cells and is effective for H1N1 influenza virus-infected MDCK cells dose-dependently. Also, the infected MDCK cells treated with DRACO have shown a significant reduction in TCID50 compared with the control group.
Conclusions: The outcomes suggest that DRACO has potential as a new anti-H1N1 therapeutic drug that its in-vivo antiviral efficacy requires to be examined through a clinical analysis of large quantities of animal models.

Edited by soulprogrammer, 16 January 2021 - 08:50 AM.

[soulprogrammer]

Come on, we really need DRACO, any medical professional here can do a study? Do crowdfunding?

 

It has proven times again by so many different teams, it works! Yet, no funding on this one, instead billions spent on mRNA vaccine research that might cause side effects and might not be even useful for future mutated variants.

 

Just give $100 million to do research on DRACO, and it solve current and future pandemic once for all.

Edited by soulprogrammer, 16 January 2021 - 08:56 AM.

[Hebbeh]

The study doesn't mention actually killing the virus but instead talks about killing infected cells by apoptosis.  Wouldn't killing the infected cell through apoptosis just release the multiplying virus's contained within the cell which would allow the released virus's to continue infecting more and more cells?  Where would it end?

[Hip]

The study doesn't mention actually killing the virus but instead talks about killing infected cells by apoptosis.  Wouldn't killing the infected cell through apoptosis just release the multiplying virus's contained within the cell which would allow the released virus's to continue infecting more and more cells?  Where would it end?

 

The main way the immune system itself fights viral infection is also by triggering apoptosis in virally-infected cells. Apoptosis is an ordered process, where the cell is systematically broken down. It's not the same as lysis, where the cell bursts open and spills its guts. Viruses themselves trigger lysis, because they want the thousands of new viruses manufactured within the cell to be spilt into the bloodstream. 

Edited by Hip, 16 January 2021 - 04:26 PM.

[Hebbeh]

It's not that simple.  There are many different types of immune cells and antibodies that work in concert to fight off infection.  There is evidence with covid that the individuals that get very sick and/or die as compared to the individuals that are asymptomatic or very mild is due to the wrong type of immune cells being activated.

 

If the immune system struggles with the proper coordinated response in half the infected individuals, how is arbitrarily killing infected cells through apoptosis allowing them to release their viral payload and hoping for the best going to help?

 

 

The main way the immune system itself fights viral infection is also by triggering apoptosis in virally-infected cells. Apoptosis is an ordered process, where the cell is systematically broken down. It's not the same as lysis, where the cell bursts open and spills its guts. Viruses themselves trigger lysis, because they want the thousands of new viruses manufactured within the cell to be spilt into the bloodstream. 

 

[Hip]

how is arbitrarily killing infected cells through apoptosis allowing them to release their viral payload and hoping for the best going to help

 
As mentioned, apoptosis is an ordered dismantling of cells. It does not spill the guts of the cell into the blood.
 

"Apoptosis is an orderly process in which the cell's contents break down and are packaged into small packets of membrane for “garbage collection” by immune cells. It contrasts with necrosis (death by injury), in which the dying cell's contents spill out and cause inflammation."

 
Ref: here.

[Hebbeh]

There is no evidence that the process of apoptosis itself also directly kills virus's contained inside the cell.  As you noted, the process of apoptosis is the orderly dismantling of the cell itself and not any virus it may contain.  The immune system may trigger apoptosis (along with a whole host of other responses) so that it can allow other immune cells and antibodies to attack the virus.  The virus is protected from the immune cells and antibodies while it's contained inside the cell compartment replicating.  The purpose of the immune system when it may trigger apoptosis is to expose the virus to the immune system.  This is all good providing the immune system is functioning and is able to destroy the virus's at the rate apoptosis is occurring.  If the immune system is not functioning optimally and can't deal with the virus's at the rate of apoptosis occurring, then the infection will begin to run away uncontrolled.  If you artificially interfere with this process by speeding up apoptosis and start releasing virus's faster than the immune system is capable of dealing with them you will surely encounter a situation of additional cells being exponentially infected.  It's naive and simplistic to believe that simply increasing the rate of apoptosis alone will benefit the situation.

[Hip]

As you noted, the process of apoptosis is the orderly dismantling of the cell itself and not any virus it may contain.  

 

Sounds like you have not read anything about the subject, and don't know how it works, and so you are just wildly speculating.

 

If the immune system has been using apoptosis for billions of years to fight viral infections, I think we can assume that the process is pretty effective, otherwise we would all be dead after catching the first cold.

Edited by Hip, 16 January 2021 - 06:26 PM.

[Hebbeh]

If the immune system has been using apoptosis for billions of years to fight viral infections, I think we can assume that the process is pretty effective, otherwise we would all be dead after catching the first cold.

 

Sounds a lot like covid and a number of other virus's.  It's not all about apoptosis by any means.

[soulprogrammer]

There is no evidence that the process of apoptosis itself also directly kills virus's contained inside the cell.  As you noted, the process of apoptosis is the orderly dismantling of the cell itself and not any virus it may contain.  The immune system may trigger apoptosis (along with a whole host of other responses) so that it can allow other immune cells and antibodies to attack the virus.  The virus is protected from the immune cells and antibodies while it's contained inside the cell compartment replicating.  The purpose of the immune system when it may trigger apoptosis is to expose the virus to the immune system.  This is all good providing the immune system is functioning and is able to destroy the virus's at the rate apoptosis is occurring.  If the immune system is not functioning optimally and can't deal with the virus's at the rate of apoptosis occurring, then the infection will begin to run away uncontrolled.  If you artificially interfere with this process by speeding up apoptosis and start releasing virus's faster than the immune system is capable of dealing with them you will surely encounter a situation of additional cells being exponentially infected.  It's naive and simplistic to believe that simply increasing the rate of apoptosis alone will benefit the situation.

 

The idea is kill the factory before it makes thousands more copies! Simple theory. When the virus infected a cell, it went inside the cell and start to multiply. Before it multiply and release thousands of copies, DRACO identify something is different with this cell and activate apoptosis. Cell suicide BEFORE it complete manufacturing thousands of copies of the virus. The virus that infected inside the cell also die together when cell apoptosis. Get the idea?

 

KILL the Virus factory! With no factory, then no army...

 

[soulprogrammer]

I want to emphasize is DRACO works by killing the virus factory, not the virus itself. With no army of virus, just a few virus lingering around the body, the body self immune system can easily handle it.

 

Our body definitely can handle tiny amount of viral load.

 

But if this tiny amount of viral load x10,000, that's the problem. DRACO stop this process!

 

DRACO stop the virus factory. Killing virus directly is difficult, due to mutation. But killing the virus factory is a lot easier. 

 

If DRACO is successful, it will be the next quantum leap after the invention of antibiotic. It will become broad spectrum antiviral drugs not just for any specific disease, theoretically it can cure hepatitis B, A, cold, flu, etc..

 

It CURE! Anyone knows billionaires, convince them to fund DRACO research, give $10m to the inventor will do!

Edited by soulprogrammer, 19 January 2021 - 01:21 AM.