Prev: Protect Medical Marijuana Patients
Next: BP meds Re: Benadryl for itchies?
From: Jamffer on 25 Jun 2008 17:31
Whole story.link...
http://www.hepatitis-central.com/mt/archives/2008/06/new_technology.html

"By applying just the right amount of vibration to a virus, scientists
believe that it can be rendered harmless."

"As one of the leading causes of liver disease, both the Hepatitis B and C
viruses remain difficult to eliminate. Although medical technology has
produced some potent medicines to battle these liver-invading viruses, they
are ineffective for a significant percentage of those infected. However,
scientists from Arizona have stepped into an entirely new field of medicine
that proposes a completely different approach to dismantling a virus. By
mathematically determining the frequency by which viruses can be shaken to
death, physics may trump the biological sciences in the quest to safely
eliminate viral pathogens."

=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>

This sounds great. Maybe, in a few years, who knows. This is not a drug so
it might get approved on a faster track, if it works.
Jamffer


From: greyhackles on 25 Jun 2008 18:52
On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 17:31:47 -0400, "Jamffer" <jamffer(a)hotmail.com> wrote:

>Whole story.link...
>http://www.hepatitis-central.com/mt/archives/2008/06/new_technology.html
>
>"By applying just the right amount of vibration to a virus, scientists
>believe that it can be rendered harmless."
>
>"As one of the leading causes of liver disease, both the Hepatitis B and C
>viruses remain difficult to eliminate. Although medical technology has
>produced some potent medicines to battle these liver-invading viruses, they
>are ineffective for a significant percentage of those infected. However,
>scientists from Arizona have stepped into an entirely new field of medicine
>that proposes a completely different approach to dismantling a virus. By
>mathematically determining the frequency by which viruses can be shaken to
>death, physics may trump the biological sciences in the quest to safely
>eliminate viral pathogens."
>
>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>
>
>This sounds great. Maybe, in a few years, who knows. This is not a drug so
>it might get approved on a faster track, if it works.
>Jamffer

I read the article. Like all similar schemes, this one left me utterly
unimpressed. It describes yet another theoretical method of killing
free-floating virions while having no potential to effect the site of
replication - not dissimilar to the quackery behind "UVC Light treatment" of
HCV.

As has been shown time and time again, simply eliminating free-floating
virions from the blood stream - even to a point below the level of detection -
will not cure a chronic HCV infection. If it did, the first time a person on
therapy received an "undetectable" test result - even using the most sensitive
of the current test methods - that person could immediately stop therapy and
be "cured".

Of course, it doesn't work that way - the replication machinery isn't in the
blood stream - and supposing it takes free-floating virions to maintain those
replication sites would be pretty naive thinking, considering the liver - the
site of the replication - is the most vascular region of the body.

Simply put, don't hold your breath, because it won't work - even if they could
strap a patient down and bombard their entire body with sound waves, light
waves, whatever waves, the little bastids will keep reproducing deep within
the liver, where none of those externally applied forces can safely reach.

And because of that - and knowing a chronic HCV infection can replicate a
TRILLION VIRIONS EVERY DAY - the concept of using this theory to form a
periodic therapeutic measure similar to dialysis (the money-making crux behind
"UVC Light" wackos) is a non-starter. Within hours if not minutes, virions
would be back to pre-treatment levels.

Bottom line: There's hope - and there's false hope. If it isn't a systemically
applied compound or combination of compounds, it ain't gonna work. That's the
only way to disrupt viral replication in situ...

/greyhackles
From: Jamffer on 25 Jun 2008 20:14

"greyhackles" <greyhackles(a)REMOVEyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:emh564pmn932p8vian2g0m4vd3bc7pjb4a(a)4ax.com...
> On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 17:31:47 -0400, "Jamffer" <jamffer(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Whole story.link...
> >http://www.hepatitis-central.com/mt/archives/2008/06/new_technology.html
> >
> >"By applying just the right amount of vibration to a virus, scientists
> >believe that it can be rendered harmless."
> >
> >"As one of the leading causes of liver disease, both the Hepatitis B and
C
> >viruses remain difficult to eliminate. Although medical technology has
> >produced some potent medicines to battle these liver-invading viruses,
they
> >are ineffective for a significant percentage of those infected. However,
> >scientists from Arizona have stepped into an entirely new field of
medicine
> >that proposes a completely different approach to dismantling a virus. By
> >mathematically determining the frequency by which viruses can be shaken
to
> >death, physics may trump the biological sciences in the quest to safely
> >eliminate viral pathogens."
> >
> >=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>
> >
> >This sounds great. Maybe, in a few years, who knows. This is not a drug
so
> >it might get approved on a faster track, if it works.
> >Jamffer
>
> I read the article. Like all similar schemes, this one left me utterly
> unimpressed. It describes yet another theoretical method of killing
> free-floating virions while having no potential to effect the site of
> replication - not dissimilar to the quackery behind "UVC Light treatment"
of
> HCV.
>
> As has been shown time and time again, simply eliminating free-floating
> virions from the blood stream - even to a point below the level of
detection -
> will not cure a chronic HCV infection. If it did, the first time a person
on
> therapy received an "undetectable" test result - even using the most
sensitive
> of the current test methods - that person could immediately stop therapy
and
> be "cured".
>
> Of course, it doesn't work that way - the replication machinery isn't in
the
> blood stream - and supposing it takes free-floating virions to maintain
those
> replication sites would be pretty naive thinking, considering the liver -
the
> site of the replication - is the most vascular region of the body.
>
> Simply put, don't hold your breath, because it won't work - even if they
could
> strap a patient down and bombard their entire body with sound waves, light
> waves, whatever waves, the little bastids will keep reproducing deep
within
> the liver, where none of those externally applied forces can safely reach.
>
> And because of that - and knowing a chronic HCV infection can replicate a
> TRILLION VIRIONS EVERY DAY - the concept of using this theory to form a
> periodic therapeutic measure similar to dialysis (the money-making crux
behind
> "UVC Light" wackos) is a non-starter. Within hours if not minutes, virions
> would be back to pre-treatment levels.
>
> Bottom line: There's hope - and there's false hope. If it isn't a
systemically
> applied compound or combination of compounds, it ain't gonna work. That's
the
> only way to disrupt viral replication in situ...
>
> /greyhackles

They didn't claim any cure. They are only perusing a new line of research.
It's all hypothesis and it may or may not result in an additional line of
attack, to add to existing standard treatment. Like with the new
therapeutic vaccines in testing, anything to lower the viral numbers can't
be bad, especially those who do not respond to standard treatment.
I too am skeptical, until real clinical trials have been completed. Until
then this is nothing, until proven.
I wouldn't call it quackery, to peruse untried avenues of research. At
least they are doing it scientifically.
So maybe we should cut them some slack, while hoping a shot in the dark
might get lucky.
Jamffer.


From: greyhackles on 25 Jun 2008 20:34
On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 20:14:24 -0400, "Jamffer" <jamffer(a)hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>"greyhackles" <greyhackles(a)REMOVEyahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:emh564pmn932p8vian2g0m4vd3bc7pjb4a(a)4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 17:31:47 -0400, "Jamffer" <jamffer(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Whole story.link...
>> >http://www.hepatitis-central.com/mt/archives/2008/06/new_technology.html
>> >
>> >"By applying just the right amount of vibration to a virus, scientists
>> >believe that it can be rendered harmless."
>> >
>> >"As one of the leading causes of liver disease, both the Hepatitis B and
>C
>> >viruses remain difficult to eliminate. Although medical technology has
>> >produced some potent medicines to battle these liver-invading viruses,
>they
>> >are ineffective for a significant percentage of those infected. However,
>> >scientists from Arizona have stepped into an entirely new field of
>medicine
>> >that proposes a completely different approach to dismantling a virus. By
>> >mathematically determining the frequency by which viruses can be shaken
>to
>> >death, physics may trump the biological sciences in the quest to safely
>> >eliminate viral pathogens."
>> >
>> >=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>
>> >
>> >This sounds great. Maybe, in a few years, who knows. This is not a drug
>so
>> >it might get approved on a faster track, if it works.
>> >Jamffer
>>
>> I read the article. Like all similar schemes, this one left me utterly
>> unimpressed. It describes yet another theoretical method of killing
>> free-floating virions while having no potential to effect the site of
>> replication - not dissimilar to the quackery behind "UVC Light treatment"
>of
>> HCV.
>>
>> As has been shown time and time again, simply eliminating free-floating
>> virions from the blood stream - even to a point below the level of
>detection -
>> will not cure a chronic HCV infection. If it did, the first time a person
>on
>> therapy received an "undetectable" test result - even using the most
>sensitive
>> of the current test methods - that person could immediately stop therapy
>and
>> be "cured".
>>
>> Of course, it doesn't work that way - the replication machinery isn't in
>the
>> blood stream - and supposing it takes free-floating virions to maintain
>those
>> replication sites would be pretty naive thinking, considering the liver -
>the
>> site of the replication - is the most vascular region of the body.
>>
>> Simply put, don't hold your breath, because it won't work - even if they
>could
>> strap a patient down and bombard their entire body with sound waves, light
>> waves, whatever waves, the little bastids will keep reproducing deep
>within
>> the liver, where none of those externally applied forces can safely reach.
>>
>> And because of that - and knowing a chronic HCV infection can replicate a
>> TRILLION VIRIONS EVERY DAY - the concept of using this theory to form a
>> periodic therapeutic measure similar to dialysis (the money-making crux
>behind
>> "UVC Light" wackos) is a non-starter. Within hours if not minutes, virions
>> would be back to pre-treatment levels.
>>
>> Bottom line: There's hope - and there's false hope. If it isn't a
>systemically
>> applied compound or combination of compounds, it ain't gonna work. That's
>the
>> only way to disrupt viral replication in situ...
>>
>> /greyhackles
>
>They didn't claim any cure. They are only perusing a new line of research.
>It's all hypothesis and it may or may not result in an additional line of
>attack, to add to existing standard treatment. Like with the new
>therapeutic vaccines in testing, anything to lower the viral numbers can't
>be bad, especially those who do not respond to standard treatment.
>I too am skeptical, until real clinical trials have been completed. Until
>then this is nothing, until proven.
>I wouldn't call it quackery, to peruse untried avenues of research. At
>least they are doing it scientifically.
>So maybe we should cut them some slack, while hoping a shot in the dark
>might get lucky.
>Jamffer.

I didn't specifically call this "quackery" yet - though I certainly did
associate it with demonstrable quackery ("UVC Light"). Of course, if anyone
ever actually proposes an embodiment of this theoretical work as a therapeutic
device, then it will indeed have crossed the line from "research" to
"quackery". I can wait - though I very much doubt it will ever get that far.

You're entitled to your opinion, and you can cut them all the slack you wish,
but this is not a path to cure, nor a path to any viable maintenance strategy.
Even as an adjuvant to drug therapy, it makes no sense. And I doubt there will
*ever* be any clinical trials, because they won't be able to define any
reasonable expectation as an endpoint or goal, thus there won't be any grounds
for trials. Which is as it should be...

/greyhackles
From: Jamffer on 25 Jun 2008 20:59

"greyhackles" <greyhackles(a)REMOVEyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:kfo564pgi8q68a7uiqm2jhijtmro0a9e20(a)4ax.com...
> On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 20:14:24 -0400, "Jamffer" <jamffer(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"greyhackles" <greyhackles(a)REMOVEyahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:emh564pmn932p8vian2g0m4vd3bc7pjb4a(a)4ax.com...
> >> On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 17:31:47 -0400, "Jamffer" <jamffer(a)hotmail.com>
wrote:
> >>
> >> >Whole story.link...
> >>
>http://www.hepatitis-central.com/mt/archives/2008/06/new_technology.html
> >> >
> >> >"By applying just the right amount of vibration to a virus, scientists
> >> >believe that it can be rendered harmless."
> >> >
> >> >"As one of the leading causes of liver disease, both the Hepatitis B
and
> >C
> >> >viruses remain difficult to eliminate. Although medical technology has
> >> >produced some potent medicines to battle these liver-invading viruses,
> >they
> >> >are ineffective for a significant percentage of those infected.
However,
> >> >scientists from Arizona have stepped into an entirely new field of
> >medicine
> >> >that proposes a completely different approach to dismantling a virus.
By
> >> >mathematically determining the frequency by which viruses can be
shaken
> >to
> >> >death, physics may trump the biological sciences in the quest to
safely
> >> >eliminate viral pathogens."
> >> >
> >> >=>=>=>=>=>=>=>=>
> >> >
> >> >This sounds great. Maybe, in a few years, who knows. This is not a
drug
> >so
> >> >it might get approved on a faster track, if it works.
> >> >Jamffer
> >>
> >> I read the article. Like all similar schemes, this one left me utterly
> >> unimpressed. It describes yet another theoretical method of killing
> >> free-floating virions while having no potential to effect the site of
> >> replication - not dissimilar to the quackery behind "UVC Light
treatment"
> >of
> >> HCV.
> >>
> >> As has been shown time and time again, simply eliminating free-floating
> >> virions from the blood stream - even to a point below the level of
> >detection -
> >> will not cure a chronic HCV infection. If it did, the first time a
person
> >on
> >> therapy received an "undetectable" test result - even using the most
> >sensitive
> >> of the current test methods - that person could immediately stop
therapy
> >and
> >> be "cured".
> >>
> >> Of course, it doesn't work that way - the replication machinery isn't
in
> >the
> >> blood stream - and supposing it takes free-floating virions to maintain
> >those
> >> replication sites would be pretty naive thinking, considering the
liver -
> >the
> >> site of the replication - is the most vascular region of the body.
> >>
> >> Simply put, don't hold your breath, because it won't work - even if
they
> >could
> >> strap a patient down and bombard their entire body with sound waves,
light
> >> waves, whatever waves, the little bastids will keep reproducing deep
> >within
> >> the liver, where none of those externally applied forces can safely
reach.
> >>
> >> And because of that - and knowing a chronic HCV infection can replicate
a
> >> TRILLION VIRIONS EVERY DAY - the concept of using this theory to form a
> >> periodic therapeutic measure similar to dialysis (the money-making crux
> >behind
> >> "UVC Light" wackos) is a non-starter. Within hours if not minutes,
virions
> >> would be back to pre-treatment levels.
> >>
> >> Bottom line: There's hope - and there's false hope. If it isn't a
> >systemically
> >> applied compound or combination of compounds, it ain't gonna work.
That's
> >the
> >> only way to disrupt viral replication in situ...
> >>
> >> /greyhackles
> >
> >They didn't claim any cure. They are only perusing a new line of
research.
> >It's all hypothesis and it may or may not result in an additional line of
> >attack, to add to existing standard treatment. Like with the new
> >therapeutic vaccines in testing, anything to lower the viral numbers
can't
> >be bad, especially those who do not respond to standard treatment.
> >I too am skeptical, until real clinical trials have been completed.
Until
> >then this is nothing, until proven.
> >I wouldn't call it quackery, to peruse untried avenues of research. At
> >least they are doing it scientifically.
> >So maybe we should cut them some slack, while hoping a shot in the dark
> >might get lucky.
> >Jamffer.
>
> I didn't specifically call this "quackery" yet - though I certainly did
> associate it with demonstrable quackery ("UVC Light"). Of course, if
anyone
> ever actually proposes an embodiment of this theoretical work as a
therapeutic
> device, then it will indeed have crossed the line from "research" to
> "quackery". I can wait - though I very much doubt it will ever get that
far.
>
> You're entitled to your opinion, and you can cut them all the slack you
wish,
> but this is not a path to cure, nor a path to any viable maintenance
strategy.
> Even as an adjuvant to drug therapy, it makes no sense. And I doubt there
will
> *ever* be any clinical trials, because they won't be able to define any
> reasonable expectation as an endpoint or goal, thus there won't be any
grounds
> for trials. Which is as it should be...
>
> /greyhackles

Although this innovative technology's potential for fighting Hepatitis B or
C is currently in a conceptual stage, the logic behind it is intriguing and
hopeful. It's too bad that greyhackles has lost all hope for new research.
It's a good thing that the scientists haven't. To think that something as
simple as resonate sonic waves on the liver might change treatment outcome
is in no way shape or form like UVC light.


 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2
Prev: Protect Medical Marijuana Patients
Next: BP meds Re: Benadryl for itchies?