virology

CAEV vs HIV: But what if it could, tho?

sa smith — Sat, 06 Feb 2016 16:52:31 +0000

CAEV vs HIV: But what if it could, tho?

Listen, nobody thinks the guy who 'cured Charlie Sheen of HIV' cured Charlie Sheen of HIV.

Even Charlie Sheen.

Dr Sam
I was with u in
Mexico for
1 day.
It's illegal for u
to practice in
U.S.A. where u
treated me for 2 months
© https://t.co/lKv6YPYdhm

— Charlie Sheen (@charliesheen) February 1, 2016

... But what if he could, tho?

What would this super awesome therapy THE MAN doesnt want you to know about look like? How would it work?

That would be a fun and educational game to play!

Okay, to play this game you first have to understand what 'CAEV' is. Caprine arthritis-encephalitis virus is a retrovirus that infects goats. It is 'like' HIV in the sense that they are both lentiviruses, that is, more complex (more genes) retroviruses. They both share the standard gag, pol, and env genes all retroviruses have, plus a few accessory genes: rev, tat, and vif. HIV also has a few more.

But while there are similarities, CAEV and HIV are not 'the same' any more than you and blue whales are 'the same' (I tried to align an amino acid sequence of a CAEV Env with an HIV-1 Env, and the program was like 'Nuh uh. Dees dont go together.')

So: How could CAEV be used to cure HIV?

1-- Anti-CAEV antibodies from goats could stop HIV!

Dr. Whatever said, specifically, that he 'looked for the absence of disease'. Where should there have been HIV, but there wasnt, and figure out what was different in the environment. His finding? The people drank milk from arthritic goats (CAEV infected animals), and were 'cured' of their HIV infections.

Maybe it was the anti-CAEV antibodies secreted in the goats milk that stopped HIV?

Not likely.

First, adult humans, like Charlie Sheen, like the HIV free people in this community, dont absorb antibodies from the foods we eat. We certainly could not absorb concentrations of antibodies necessary to stop the number of viruses circulating in humans during acute or substantially progressed HIV infection.

Even if we did, the process would eventually stop working.

Why?

Because we would eventually start making antibodies to the goat antibodies.

They are not something your immune system would recognize as 'self', so your body would try to stop these foreign proteins, even if the antibodies were 'helping'. Your immune system doesnt know or understand that.

That is why when we make antibodies for therapy, they must be genetically modified to look as 'human' as possible.

This is also granting the premise that the goat antibodies would stop HIV, which looks significantly different from CAEV... when they aint stopping CAEV in the goat.

There is some evidence that some goat antibodies can 'see' parts of HIV. But 'seeing' HIV and 'stopping' HIV are entirely different things. People infected with HIV make LOTS of antibodies that 'see' HIV... but they dont do jack shit to stop the virus.

That is the kicker, and there is no evidence that goat CAEV viruses can neutralize HIV, or mediate ADCC activity, or stop HIV in any capacity.

2-- CAEV for HIV is like cowpox for smallpox!

Dr. Whatshisface also mentioned cowpox/smallpox. MAYBE it isnt the antibodies in goats milk that are stopping HIV, but the actual virus!

If the virus is being transmitted to humans via milk, and these humans are making their own antibodies that stop CAEV which cross-react with HIV, then that gets around the humanized antibody therapy thing, right?

Maybe!

... But then again, this still doesnt address the fact that antibodies to CAEV would not necessarily translate into antibodies that can stop HIV. I mean, just to reemphasize this point-- You know how you have to get a flu shot every year because the flu changes? And the antibodies you made that protected you last year might not protect you this year? Little changes between variants of influenza drastically effect your immune systems ability to stop the virus. This strategy bets that two different species of retroviruses, viruses whos *specialty* is evading antibodies, cross-react beautifully to stop disease.

I would not make that bet.

And then there is no evidence humans are exposed to CAEV via goat milk and make protective anti-HIV antibodies. Indeed, if this were the case, these 'protected' individuals would 'test positive' for HIV. Initial HIV tests look for antibodies to HIV... so the test would would detect the cross-reactive antibodies in these 'CAEV' people. They would all be HIV positive, and have no viral loads (because they were protected from HIV). And then the scientific community, not some random dude, would be studying these populations to figure out 'how they were controlling HIV'. *shrug*

3-- CAEV as a gene-therapy vector vs HIV!

To his credit, Dr. Dude did say that his magic approach to curing HIV was not like what scientists were doing-- genetically modifying viruses to cure cancers and genetic diseases.

But, since hes not really doing anything and we are just playing, lets pretend. Maybe CAEV could be used as a gene-therapy vector to stop HIV!

This could work, maybe!

Lentiviruses are relatively safe ways to deliver 'healthy' genes. And humans, just walking around, probably are not making antibodies to CAEV (they are so some of the preferred vectors, causing problems). But we have no idea what cells, if any, CAEV would infect-->deliver genes in humans. We dont know how well CAEV would express the delivered genes. We also dont know what information to give CAEV. CRISPR to cut out CCR5? The genes for producing broadly neutralizing antibodies?

I am not sure this is a promising avenue of research (CAEV as gene therapy, not gene therapy vs HIV in general)-- I could only find one publication on this topic in PubMed, and its from 2006.

Dear Mr. Maher--

Ill be on the West coast in a couple weeks if you want to have a real Dr. on your show to talk about HIV.

Have your people call my people.

--ERV

sa smith Sat, 02/06/2016 - 11:52

Tags

Pop Culture

retrovirus

science outreach

Skepticism/Critical Thinking

virology

HIV-1

this subject is controversial thus need more extensive research but to make insinuations to the contrary does not prove or disprove anything. scientist/doctors disagree on many things so making comments and correlate studies with a bunch of maybes as a conclusions does not prove a point.

this subject is controversial thus need more extensive research
No, people saying "Bullshit!!!" is not the same as "needs more extensive research".
But if you want to pay for that research, go for it!

I ate bacon for breakfast this morning. I did not catch the flu today. Maybe swine flu protected me from human flu? Should we spend a few $million studying this? Should you pay me a few $thousand to eat some bacon I cooked up in Mexico?

I mean, I guess if you're looking for new novel vectors CAEV isn't the worst choice. It's a virus that infects mammals (good) and most humans haven't already been exposed to and therefore don't already have immunity to (good). But the non-human part is also bad because the virus might not infect people at all, or only poorly, or only the wrong kind of cells.

So I'm pretty sure there are more systematic ways of finding new lentivirus vectors than what a known crazy celebrity's not-doctor says.

I read a vox article that made a pretty strong claim about human milk.

http://www.vox.com/2014/5/10/5699674/6-remarkable-things-science-has-ta…

From the article:

Worldwide, only about 10 to 20 percent of infants breastfed by mothers with HIV catch the virus, and new research has identified the reason. A protein called Tenascin-C, naturally present in all breast milk, binds to the virus and prevents it from attacking human cells.

Is this woo or an up and coming treatment? COULD it be a treatment?

WHOOOOHOOO!!!!! GMO HSV-1 vs Cancer

sa smith — Fri, 30 Oct 2015 08:54:23 +0000

WHOOOOHOOO!!!!! GMO HSV-1 vs Cancer

April 7, 2010:

Using HSV-1 to cure metastatic melanoma

May 26, 2015:

WHOOOO!!!!! GMO HSV-1 vs Cancer

October 27, 2015:

FDA approves first-of-its-kind product for the treatment of melanoma

Skin cancer is the most common form of cancer in the United States. Melanoma, one type of skin cancer, is the leading cause of skin cancer related deaths, and is most often caused by exposure to ultraviolet (UV) light. According to the National Cancer Institute approximately 74,000 Americans will be diagnosed with melanoma and nearly 10,000 will die from the disease in 2015.

Imlygic, a genetically modified live oncolytic herpes virus therapy, is used to treat melanoma lesions that cannot be removed completely by surgery. Imlygic is injected directly into the melanoma lesions, where it replicates inside cancer cells and causes the cells to rupture and die.

WHOOOOHOOO!!!!!

*highfivesallaround*

Some older videos I just found interesting:

sa smith Fri, 10/30/2015 - 04:54

Tags

Sweet! Go HSV-1! Do something useful for once!

What happens when a vaccine actually does something 'bad'

sa smith — Tue, 21 Jul 2015 14:09:00 +0000

What happens when a vaccine actually does something 'bad'

I love this. I love this so much.

Jim Carrey and his anti-vax comrades know literally nothing about vaccines, how they are developed, and how they work. Vaccines do not cause autism.

... But... what if a vaccine *did* end up having a pretty 'bad' side-effect (outside of something expected, high fever, allergic reaction, etc)?

How would scientists know?

Would it be covered up by Big Pharma and the League of Evil Immunologists?

Would The Truth come out when some post-doc henchman has a change of heart and runs to the internet to write a blog post Expose?

!!!!!!

This is what happens when vaccines have an unintended negative side-effect:

Antibodies to influenza nucleoprotein cross-react with human hypocretin receptor 2

There was un uptick in cases of narcolepsy in people who had gotten an influenza vaccine. Not any/every influenza vaccine, but a specific formulation, intended to battle H1N1 influenza (aka swine flu).

If you were vaccinated with a specific flu vaccine, Pandemrix, and if you have a specific genetic allele, HLA-DQB1*0602, you were at risk of developing vaccine-induced autoimmunity.

Your antibodies see 'shapes', not specifically 'I am going to stop influenza!' or 'Im gonna blow up that E. coli!'. So when the shape of a component of the vaccine, influenza nucleoprotein, 'looks like' the shape of a normal human protein, hypocretin receptor 2, vaccination broke tolerance ('This is what me looks like. Dont make antibodies that look like me.'), and you get autoimmunity.

In this case, the influenza/you cross-reactive antibodies, sometimes, stuck to normal humanhypocretin receptor 2, and resulted in narcolepsy after vaccination.

Crap.

Vaccine-->neurological disorder. This means vaccines COULD cause autism, a different neurological disorder, right?

Not at all.

The relationship between this vaccine, a very specific genotype, and an increased risk of narcolepsy was seen in independent groups where Pandemrix was used. Different countries. Different scientists. Same observations.

No one, anywhere, has 'evidence' vaccines cause autism.

The scientists in this study fully elucidated the specific vaccine component, the specific genotypes of patients, and the specific antibody responses capable of generating a 'narcolepsy' phenotype.

The 'vaccines cause autism' crowd blame random vaccine components (changing to another random component, or not changing, when their component of choice is exonerated). They ignore/deny the genetic component of autism. They have no viable hypothesis for the biochemical pathway that would lead from 'random vaccine component' to 'autism'.

Furthermore, the authors of this study in no way shape or form say 'Vaccines are bad!', even though they have evidence in hand that a vaccine did something 'bad'. Their conclusions are:

1) People with this genotype could have had a *worse* reaction if they were infected with the actual pathogen, rather than just the vaccine. Infection leads to prolonged exposure to more of the influenza protein, and results in more cross-reactive antibodies. Even if there were no other options, the vaccine would be a lower risk than actually getting sick.

2) There are other options. People with this genotype can can get one of the other vaccine formulations that had 73% less of the offending flu protein. Most of us got this vaccine anyway, just because of availability. But it is best if they get this alternative vaccine before they are infected with an H1N1 virus.

3) Other people need to get vaccinated to protect HLA-DQB1*0602 people from getting infected-->acquiring narcolepsy. The relationship between HLA-DQB1*0602 and narcolepsy is, as the authors say four times in this paper, 'tight'. If you have a different genotype, and you get the vaccine, you wont get sick/will have milder symptoms, and will lessen your chances of transmitting to a HLA-DQB1*0602 person. Classic herd immunity.

4) This data explains why there were cyclical cases of narcolepsy in China when H1N1 was simmering over there, before this flu variant went pandemic. Indeed, it might even explain "the observation of the seasonal “sleepy sickness” variant of encephalitis lethargica that followed the 1918 Spanish flu". But there is no way to test that one.

5) This is not a complete answer to Narcolepsy. You can have narcolepsy and not have antibodies to this influenza protein. And, just because you have the antibodies doesnt mean you will have narcolepsy. The authors also hypothesize that there needs to be an additional infection, something that causes inflammation and allows lots of the cross-reactive antibody to cross the blood-brain-barrier and 'attack' the receptor, and maybe that second event never happens in some people. But this is a potential answer for why some people developed narcolepsy after receiving the Pandemrix vaccine or infection with a specific kind of influenza.

And in a breath of fresh air-- These authors do not close the door on this topic. This paper is not perfect, and the authors do not pretend it is. There are things they wanted to look at, but they couldnt due to the nature of the samples they had stored for this study. Those of us who work with patient samples are slaves to availability. It would be great to have samples X, Y, and Z, but if you dont have them, you dont have them. These folks say 'Hey, if you are making a cohort, these are the samples we wish we had, and could explain so much more.'

When scientists discover that a vaccine has actually resulted in a 'bad' side-effect, we analyze, in extreme detail, how and why the 'bad' thing happened so we can understand it and avoid it, while still protecting people from the pathogen the vaccine was designed for. Even better, in this case, figuring out what happened via the vaccine helped explain what was happening 'naturally' (increase in narcolepsy cases after H1N1 outbreaks), and how to stop those cases (alternative vaccines, herd immunity). They admit the limitations of this paper, and flesh out ideas they would like the field to investigate.

Anti-vaxers, on the other hand, have no idea how/why any vaccine could lead to autism. They have no evidence it does. They want all vaccines taken off the market. They have no viable alternative means of protecting anyone from pathogenic bacteria, viruses, and cancers. They have no answer for why people who havent had vaccines get autism. They admit no study weaknesses or limitations-- Sample size of two or questionable statistics are The Gold Standard-- while dismissing more rigorous data that doesnt agree with their claims.

Scientists cant explain everything, but anti-vaxers cant explain anything.

sa smith Tue, 07/21/2015 - 10:09

Tags

"The ‘vaccines cause autism’ crowd blame random vaccine components (changing to another random component, or not changing, when their component of choice is exonerated). They ignore/deny the genetic component of autism. They have no viable hypothesis for the biochemical pathway that would lead from ‘random vaccine component’ to ‘autism’."

You're missing something here.

Why couldn't there be an interaction between the "genetic" tendency to autism , resulting in actual autism (or "autistic-like symptoms", if you want to play with semantics) in a victim once the "insult" of vaccination is introduced, just like happened in these narcolepsy cases?

Eight hundred European kids were irrovicably damaged through their Pandemrix exposure, an unacceptable result regardless of what we learned from this.

I would also point out the cases of paralysis associated with enterovirus 68 that have been popping up among children. Many who become ill with it never become paralyzed. Some do, suggesting it has less to do with the illness than with individual immune response to it.

GBS as a reaction to illness or vaccination is another example. It has less to do with the agent and more to do with individualized immune response.

Unfortunately we don't currently have enough put into the actual "science" of vaccination to individualize them to each person receiving them. We don't care.... as long as the majority of the herd gets by with minimal damage.

More and more parents, are understanding that, especially as the medical industry is steadily increasing the number of vaccinations that they deem necessary.

@s.s.

"Why couldn’t there be an interaction between the “genetic” tendency to autism , resulting in actual autism (or “autistic-like symptoms”, if you want to play with semantics) in a victim once the “insult” of vaccination is introduced, just like happened in these narcolepsy cases?"

Absolutely no reason. Now all you have to do is show us the evidence that it is occurring. Because in this example the evidence came first and the reason came later. In autism anti-vaxxers there was never any evidence.

One specific strain of an anti-vaccine, caught very soon after its introduction, stopped and analysed because of evidence vs years and years of no evidence with regard to childhood vaccinations and autism. The point of this article was to show that when things do go bad they are caught and corrected.

So, where's your evidence?

"Absolutely no reason. Now all you have to do is show us the evidence that it is occurring. Because in this example the evidence came first and the reason came later. In autism anti-vaxxers there was never any evidence."

Of course there is. Personal observation of parents who witnessed the injury done to their children following vaccination.

"Scientists" are so quick to point out that autism is an inherited condition, genetically based, yet they can't tell where exactly the problem lies in the genes. Even less, tell us how injection of chemicals into the bloodstream could AFFECT those with a genetic-based tendency toward autism, or immune sensitivity.

Perhaps the evidence IS coming first, in the form of these vaccine-injured-with-autistic-symptoms children - just like it did with those 800 narcolepsy cases. The research just has to catch up with the evidence.

It's going to take a lot of parents/people putting their foot down and saying "no more", before "science" decides that genetics and the immune system as a whole is enough of a priority that personalized vaccination becomes a reality. Not just shooting all moving targets with one bullet, and then another, and then another; and then trying to shut up the claims of the outliers, of which there seems to be more and more as time passes and more "necessary" vaccinations are forced into the human body.

FYI: The anti-vaxers (I'm related to a few) have mostly given up on the autism link, and moved on. If you want to talk with them, you will need to let go of the autism argument as well. The fact is, you are never going to convince them or change their minds. But I won't disagree with you trying.

Good information, Abbie, and I think this may be useful in making our case, a) that science is self-critical and self-correcting, and b) that a finding can be extended into a prediction that turns out to be correct. Whereas c) the anti-vaxers have nothing substantial: contagious fear plus contagious conspiracy theory does not equal the ability to predict anything.

Emotions are chemicals, and the chemistry of fear and anxiety is well known. As with any psychoactive drug, fear and anxiety have half-lives and take time to wear off. A rational message meant to address a fear can't make the fear go away, any more than the rational need to drive oneself home from a party makes the effects of alcohol or marijuana go away. They have to wear off on their own.

The problem with conditioned fear responses is that the associated stimulus itself triggers a new episode of fear or anxiety: so the very act of trying to explain the facts to an anti-vaxer triggers the paranoia. The only way I can see to get around this is by building up an association of calm and trust for the messenger before s/he delivers the message. That would require reaching messengers who are already trusted, such as patients' GPs, or community leaders such as clergy and so on.

Lastly, so now we see more anti-vaxers showing up in comments in ScienceBlogs. They should recognize that they're in over their heads here, arguing with people who know far more than they do. Or perhaps they are here because they're having cognitive dissonance about their anti-vax beliefs, and they subconsciously want us to help them get over those beliefs?

"Of course there is. Personal observation of parents who witnessed the injury done to their children following vaccination. "

That's not evidence. That's "post hoc ergo propter hoc", a common logical fallacy.

Autism usually manifests near a certain age. That age lies fairly soon after the normal child vaccination schedule. The facts show that there's no correlation beyond the temporal - children who aren't vaccinated show signs of autism at the same rates and at the same times as those who are.

"Even less, tell us how injection of chemicals into the bloodstream could AFFECT those with a genetic-based tendency toward autism, or immune sensitivity. "

The fact that you use the word "chemicals" in such a fashion shows you're operating from a base of very low information. Water is a chemical. Every substance in the universe is a chemical. Calling something a "chemical" doesn't make it dangerous, just as calling something "natural" doesn't make it safe.

You don't know what evidence is. You don't know what scientists claim (the cause of autism is not known, and is suspected by varying scientists to be genetic or developmental). You don't understand risk.

Basically, you understand none of the things required for any person to take you seriously when you voice an opinion on vaccines.

The fact that you use the word “chemicals” in such a fashion shows you’re operating from a base of very low information.

"Injection ... nto the bloodstream" is always a good sign that one is not dealing with a particularly competent antivaccine crank.

"the fact that you use the word "chemicals" in such a fashion shows that you're operating from a base of very low information."

The fact that you choose to pick apart my simple words instead of addressing the thought processes and facts behind them highlights the arrogance of many within the medical and research communities.

CHEMICAL is an absolutely valid term for the items within a vaccine - if you are so stupid as to believe that I don't know what a chemical is, or perceive that I believe all chemicals are unsafe for the human body, that highlights your own ignorance, not mine.

Address what I actually said, and the ideas I put forth, and then maybe you can prove your own "superior" knowledge of the subject to me.

"“Of course there is. Personal observation of parents who witnessed the injury done to their children following vaccination. ”

That’s not evidence. That’s “post hoc ergo propter hoc”, a common logical fallacy."

Enough single anecdotes of the same phenomenon, over and over and over again, becomes valid data.

Data of vaccination (not a single anecdote, but stories, over and over again, by many parents), resulting in abnormal screaming, crying, pain symptoms, and finally withdrawal on the part of the victim becomes data that hopefully parents will listen to even if "scientists" won't.

This will have to be a grassroots movement at the parental level, because your science is so tainted by money, profits, and incestual relationships with the pharma industry and government (Hello, Rick Perry. Hello, Richard Pan).

The individual is of no concern to you. The herd is your interest. Our individual children are ours.

And lastly, I do understand risk. That's why my children are vaccinated. I balanced the risk against the benefit. I delayed and spaced out.

The only vaccines to date that I've consistently refused for my kids are the ridiculous and ineffective flu vaccine and Merck's big moneymaker, Gardasil (for obvious safety reasons).

But as parents, we're dealing with doctors who've been "persuaded" by years of intimate dealings with pharma salesmen (thanks, US government, for finally insisting on public reporting of all that fun stuff), and government officials who've been purchased by lobbyist money from ethically ambivalent pharma corporations.

So I don't want to hear about the scientific "illiteracy" of America's parents who are wary of any of your claims of safety or necessity. You guys brought this s**** down on yourselves and you've dug a really deep hole. Have fun with that.

"Autism usually manifests near a certain age. That age lies fairly soon after the normal child vaccination schedule."

Really. So most autism is regressive?

Now WHO doesn't know what they're talking about?

True regressive autism makes up 1/3 of autism cases.

CHEMICAL is an absolutely valid term for the items within a vaccine – if you are so stupid as to believe that I don’t know what a chemical is, or perceive that I believe all chemicals are unsafe for the human body, that highlights your own ignorance, not mine.

And.... that's a wrap.

"Enough single anecdotes of the same phenomenon, over and over and over again, becomes valid data. "

The problem wasn't with the observation count but with the assertion, ss.

Your claim is identical to the old wives' tale that thunderstorms cause curdled milk.

Autism cannot be found in early children because they aren't developed enough to exhibit signs that aren't comensurate with autism but aren't a normal consequence of their developement state.

It's like you can't claim incontinence or stomach upset on a nursing infant because babies don't know how to control their bladder and their digestive system has not built up the gut flora yet, so these effects cannot be discerned in very young babies, whereas they CAN be found in children and adults because they HAVE learned bladder control and HAVE developed a fully operational digestive system.

So you can't diagnose young children with autism because normal children act the same way as autistic adults do.

By the time they've developed enough to control themselves and thereby show a diversion from the norm, they're old enough to have been vaccinated.

Since the age discrepancy of autism diagnosis is found in VASTLY more numbers than autism AFTER vaccination, the balance of evidence lies heavily on the side of vaccination being unrelated to autism.

"I balanced the risk against the benefit. "

So what is the risk your children could become autistic from being vaccinated? One in a hundred? One in a thousand? Or was it undefined and "not proven there was no risk", in which case why did you bother vaccinating your children, since there was a risk that an infinite number of problems would occur, therefore a GUARANTEE that SOME risk would arise?

"“Autism usually manifests near a certain age. That age lies fairly soon after the normal child vaccination schedule.”

Really. So most autism is regressive? "

Do you not know what "age" means? Do you not know what "regressive" means? Because either one or both must be true since nowhere in the quote you made did the word "regressive" appear.

s.s. and all parents everywhere, that isn't YOUR child, that's THEIR PERSON.

Just because you're responsible and you have to look after them DOES NOT make them your property.

YOUR right over that child's future is no more yours than it is anyone else's.

And, since there are more "anyone else" than there are you, THEIR multitude interest outweights your singular interest.

The ONLY one whose interests outweight that of "everyone else" is the child themselves.

“Even less, tell us how injection of chemicals into the bloodstream could AFFECT those with a genetic-based tendency toward autism, or immune sensitivity. ”

Since you admit when pushed that chemicals include ones that are absolutely fine being put into your body, your comment is pointless, since it doesn't show what chemicals are problematic and how.

Since you made the claim without any point, THAT is why everyone here with half a brain is telling you you haven't a clue what you're talking about.

Not that you don't know what a chemical is, but that you don't know what you're actually saying, since every valuable bit of information is missing from your claims and YOU DO NOT REALISE THIS.

Vaccine-induced autism is REGRESSIVE autism, Wow.

It happens when a normally-developing child receives a vaccine and REGRESSES, usually with fevers, screaming, crying, and other symptoms. They then withdraw and lose the abilities that they once displayed.

That's why I commented on regression. It's NOT the most common form of autism, and most cases of autism usually can be diagnosed before the age that vaccinations are received.

That's why our government keeps telling parents that early detection and intervention is best - as early as 6 months. Early symptoms.

That is NOT the same as true regression, when your child is hitting ALL their milestones until the time of (vaccination).

And dude, my children ARE my responsibility, and I WILL continue to act, as all parents do, as I think will best ensure their health and wellbeing until they can make health choices themselves. At the age of majority - 18, in most cases.

Since science STILL cannot tell us how to PREVENT autism, then parents WILL continue to listen to the observations of other parents and try to prevent autism by avoiding (early) vaccination, if they must.

Deal with it.

"“I balanced the risk against the benefit. ”

So what is the risk your children could become autistic from being vaccinated? One in a hundred? One in a thousand? Or was it undefined and “not proven there was no risk”, in which case why did you bother vaccinating your children, since there was a risk that an infinite number of problems would occur, therefore a GUARANTEE that SOME risk would arise?"

Do you happen to know what the condition of autism is, Wow?
A condition that we are being told whose number of cases increases exponentially, almost yearly?

Do you know what it financially and emotionally does to families who are trying to rescue their children from the worst aspects of the disorder? Those who can't speak, who can't even take care of themselves, and who never will? EVER?

Besides the condemnation of that child for an entire lifetime, you have parents who will be forced into caretaking and/or education and development attempts until they die, when that child is passed along to other family members or warehoused (at the cost to SOME OTHER family member) until THEY die???

Parents are now beginning to TRULY realize the implications of willingly taking that "small risk" of autism/brain damage through vaccination.

This condition has societal implications has it grows larger and larger and more families become financially and emotionally unstable in its wake. You ALREADY hear stories of parents who feel so cornered and trapped they kill themselves as well as their autistic children because they can't take anymore.

And when does larger society step in to combat this growing problem? Since, you know, it WILL become a problem for ALL of us, not just the unfortunate victims and their immediate families. We'll all pay for this, eventually.

Why the hell WOULDN'T a parent choose to forego this risk in any way they have in their grasp? Science can't give us the answers right now.

Only other parents, who've had the experience and seen what happens when vaccinations go "bad", can share their knowledge and observations. That's all we parents got right now.

"Vaccine-induced autism is REGRESSIVE autism, Wow. "

No it isn't. Autism isn't vaccine induced.

"It happens when a normally-developing child receives a vaccine and REGRESSES,"

Nope. It doesn't happen.

"usually with fevers, screaming, crying"

Which aren't symptoms of autism.

"That’s why I commented on regression. It’s NOT the most common form of autism,"

Yes, not occurring at all is much less than the rate of appearance of something that DOES happen.

"and most cases of autism usually can be diagnosed before the age that vaccinations are received."

But the number of autism cases soon after immunisation is already small, so how do you know that any hypothetical possible autism would be diagnosable before the age they can be immunised?

You don't. preferring to beg the question rather than make a proof.

"Do you know what it financially and emotionally does to families who are trying to rescue their children from the worst aspects of the disorder?"

Yes. My parents and my sister's family. This, however, does not constitute proof that vaccinations cause autism. An appeal to emotion is a technique to hide the fact that you have nothing.

"And dude, my children ARE my responsibility"

And dude, go back to school and learn to read, I said they were your responsibility. I said they are not your property.

"and I WILL continue to act, as all parents do, as I think will best ensure their health and wellbeing until they can make health choices themselves"

Not if your choices are bad ones. And who decides that? Everyone else in society when they make their social rules.

E.g. regarding vaccinations and school attendance.

Or, in the case of religious objectors who refuse surgical procedures on their children, they can have their children taken away and ignored.

"Since science STILL cannot tell us how to PREVENT autism"

Since that doesn't mean vaccines cause autism, who the hell cares? What the hell is it supposed to mean? It certainly doesn't justify the following statement of bigoted ideology from you.

"by avoiding (early) vaccination, if they must. "

Since you don't know how vaccines cause autism, nor even that they do, you cannot claim that protecting the children from autism will be accomplished by avoiding vaccines.

And note that the child is the one who forfeits if you are wrong.

Pretty brave when someone else's life is on the line, bub...

"Do you happen to know what the condition of autism is, Wow?"

Do you happen to know that wasn't anything approaching an answer to the question, ss?

Do you know what an answer to the question is?

Because it appears you believe a response is an answer, when in fact it isn't necessarily. All answers are responses, not all responses are answers.

So answer the question.

"Why the hell WOULDN’T a parent choose to forego this risk"

There isn't a risk.

You yourself don't know that there IS one, hence your refusal to answer what the risk actually was, so therefore there is no risk.

"Deal with it."

Yes, though one way to deal with it is to remove the child from your abuse and put them in a family that won't see them harmed because they're fatuously misinformed and alarmist.

You endanger that child and you no longer have the right to make that child's decisions for them.

That's one way to "deal with it".

Since you were happy with me dealing with it, this will likewise be fine.

If not, tough shit. Deal with it.

I think I have you pegged, Wow.

No doubt your parents are dealing with the ramifications of aspergers, aren't they?

Lucky for them, unlike so many, if that's as bad as it gets for them.

"I think I have you pegged, Wow. "

You don't.

Either think or have me pegged. See, I'm open minded enough to give you multiple options!

"No doubt your parents are dealing with the ramifications of aspergers, aren’t they?"

No doubt you think that this is relevant.

Nobody knows why. Not even you.

But what we CAN all see is that you have nothing other than insinuation and personal attacks to hide the fact that you have no data or facts to back up your petulant claims.

Have I got you pegged?

I give as good as I get, Wow.

But I won't argue with an Aspie. You've got enough problems.

No, you get it good.

Pants at giving it, though.

This is not entirely your fault, because there really isn't anything other than emo on your side.

But what IS entirely your fault and proof positive you don't give, let alone "give as good as you get" is the fact that you've managed, what, a half-dozen posts avoiding answering "what is the risk of autism, then? one in a hundred, a thousand?".

I gave that question, you gave nothing.

Because you have nothing.

Other than feels.

"You’ve got enough problems."

I may have 99 problems, but a bitch like you ain't one.

The problem isn't whether I'm an aspie (your claim, not mine), but that you can't answer the questions nor support your claims with evidence.

Hence you try to make out that your failures are due to you being "too nice" to make any sort of case.

Oh, by the way, do YOU know what it financially and emotionally does to families who are trying to rescue their children from the worst aspects of the disorder?

If yes, then you must be an Aspie, therefore you must be condescended to as you already have too many problems.

If no, then you cannot make any claims as to whether it's risky to let your children be vaccinated.

Do you happen to know what the condition of autism is?

If yes, then you must be an Aspie, therefore you must be condescended to as you already have too many problems.

If no, then you cannot make any claims as to whether it's risky to let your children be vaccinated.

"What is the risk of autism" especially in vaccination-injury cases is an unanswerable question, Wow.

In case you haven't figured that out.

Parents are told over and over (for DECADES now) that their child's condition can in no way be related to the vaccination they've received in any way. Since no one in the (rather corrupted) medical research field collects and quantifies the data that parents have been told for years is invalid.

No one knows what the risk is. Even you.

So parents are filling in the gaps themselves.

#hearthiswell

"“What is the risk of autism” especially in vaccination-injury cases is an unanswerable question, Wow. "

Then you don't know there is any risk at all.

And since you seem to be unaware of how to calculate risk vs reward, you have to know what the risk IS before you can make a calculation on whether that risk is worth it.

So your claims of assessing risk is shown to be completely self-serving tripe.

"Parents are told over and over (for DECADES now) that their child’s condition can in no way be related to the vaccination they’ve received in any way."

Yes.

And?

"So parents are filling in the gaps themselves."

No they aren't. They're making things up.

Ah yes, the snake that consumes his own tail.

"We in the medical industry refuse to accept the data given to us and therefore ignore it, so we can't calculate the risk involved from it."

"So therefore, this is no risk".

That the day should come when the general public understands the absurdity of ths more than the scientists. You know the world must be ending soon.

"They're making things up."

Sure, Wow. (that was sarcasm, in case you didn't get it).

I understand. It hasn't happened to YOU so you can't possibly envision it happening to anyone.

"Ah yes, the snake that consumes his own tail."

You appear to be running off on a tangent hoping that your avoidance and lack of information will go unnoticed.

Just pointing that out.

"That the day should come when the general public understands the absurdity of ths more than the scientists. "

Why? And what would be the proof it is absurd?

"It hasn’t happened to YOU so you can’t possibly envision it happening to anyone."

Uh, did you just forget what made you claim I was an aspie?

Are you a severe sufferer from Alzheimers at an advanced stage?

Or are you, like the Guiness director jailed for fraud, just pretending to have it?

But I note that you're still attempting to rush off at tangents with much screaming and waving the arms about in a desperate attempt to hide the fact that you've been unable to support your claims at all.

But at least you're not making the same dumb claim that "there's a risk, and parents are weighing that risk" in your desperation to hide your flawed argument.

"Regressive". You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_%28medicine%29

Oh, right, I knew that "s.s." had mortified itself previously, but the show was so dull that it took a while to recall.

Over there, ss demands "Show me your evidence that any recent research has confirmed intussusception after rotavirus vaccination is “sheer coincidence”. "

From the wikipedia on rates:

> The condition is diagnosed most often in infancy and early childhood. It strikes about 2,000 infants (one in every 1,900)

From the Rotovirus rates from Lawrence:

> If I recall correctly, it was over 1 more case per 10,000 doses that caused the recall.

In a rate of 1 in 2000, your variation around the meanwould be something of the order of 1 in 4000. Therefore a rate of occurrence changing by less than half that is completely statistically insignificant and entirely explained by "sheer coincidence".

By the way, did you notice that ss didn't believe that there was any such thing as regressive autism for years until someone on this site made a statement they took to mean it did exist, and even then didn't come round to believing it existed until somewhere between post #12 on 24th and post #19 on the 25th on this thread.

"Enough single anecdotes of the same phenomenon, over and over and over again, becomes valid data."

Never all your anecdotes, ss, let's just think about your logic.
- vaccines cause autism
- therefore children who are unvaccinated will have a much lower risk of autism.

And yet....chilldren who are unvaccinated have a slightly *higher* rate of autism.

Ergo, not only do you have no evidence that vaccinations cause autism and are repeating the lies concocted by a fraudulent medical researcher who faked his research to cast doubts on the MMR jab and was trying to patent his own vaccines to make money out of this faked research, but additionaly, simple, basic logic demonstrates your contention is absolute crap.

Having said that, the flu jab is medical overservicing which poorly addresses a low risk, and carries (as do all medical procedures) a variety of risks with it.

As the flu jab is so ineffective and has to be repeated every year - and repeated with a new vaccine that has been developed in a rush and is untested - the cumulative and special risks associated with this vaccine mean that you would have to have rocks in your head to volunteer for it.

"And yet….chilldren who are unvaccinated have a slightly *higher* rate of autism."

Super. Because you said, it must be true?

Please cite your source(s) for that one.

And I'm speaking specifically of the rate of "regressive" autism, Craig.

Show me your figures that specify that children who are unvaccinated have a greater rate of "regressive" autism. Where they are hitting all milestones and SUDDENLY lapse into withdrawal and loss of previously-exhibited skills.

That is my premise, and the claims of parents who've seen it happen - that vaccination, in their specific child's case, results in brain damage that exhibits with the sudden development of autistic-like symptoms.

"Having said that, the flu jab is medical overservicing which poorly addresses a low risk, and carries (as do all medical procedures) a variety of risks with it.

As the flu jab is so ineffective and has to be repeated every year – and repeated with a new vaccine that has been developed in a rush and is untested – the cumulative and special risks associated with this vaccine mean that you would have to have rocks in your head to volunteer for it."

And yet, Craig, the pharma and medical industries are every bit as vehement about forcing their crappy yearly flu vaccines on the population as any other vaccine that's out there. The infant rotavirus vaccine is another example of that kind of BS.

What you're suggesting is actually medical mutiny in the eyes of the pharma/medical community, in even HINTING that people actually use critical thinking in deciding which vaccine is valid for themselves or their children, rather than handing it off for their doctors to decide.

"Super. Because you said, it must be true? "

Well, you've been satisfied with that for your own "arguments" What's wrong with it now? Is it merely you're not using it?

"And I’m speaking specifically of the rate of “regressive” autism, Craig."

Which is zero.

"That is my premise,"

Well it's ours too. Show evidence.

"As the flu jab is so ineffective and has to be repeated every year"

No, because evolution is true it has to be repeated every year.

“As the flu jab is so ineffective and has to be repeated every year”

No, because evolution is true it has to be repeated every year."

No, it's ineffective because it only protects about 50% of people who receive it every year. This last year it only protected about 20% of people who received it.

"Well it’s ours too. Show evidence."

Science has yet to show ANY evidence of ways that autism can be avoided.

Period.

Anecdotal evidence from parents who've had the experience of seeing their children regress following vaccination are offering an alternative for those hoping to avoid the condition for their kids.

They're offering the benefit of their tragic experiences. They're not just going to shut up and go away.

Again, until your tainted and corrupt (or even just limited and undeveloped) "science" can offer something concrete to solve this catastrophic problem, to give some answers as to how and why, and ways to avoid it, truly concerned and thinking parents will continue to look elsewhere for ways they can to protect their children.

"Ergo, not only do you have no evidence that vaccinations cause autism and are repeating the lies concocted by a fraudulent medical researcher who faked his research to cast doubts on the MMR jab and was trying to patent his own vaccines to make money out of this faked research, but additionaly, simple, basic logic demonstrates your contention is absolute crap."

BTW, Craig - you are aware, of course, of others who are now beginning to research and sell their own vaccines based exactly on the premise of the gut-flora-and-brain connection that Wakefield theorized.

Here's the info on it:

http://www.inquisitr.com/1885467/vaccine-created-for-autism-symptoms-ai…

Here's more research on the gut-brain connection, especially among "late-onset" (regressive) autism subjects:

http://bacteriaandautism.com/PDF/Finegold_Autism.pdf

Additionally, this recent discovery between the gut and the brain has been hailed as groundbreaking:

http://io9.com/scientists-discover-a-new-link-between-the-brain-and-th-…

"Last week, researchers announced they had discovered a physical connection between the immune system and the brain’s blood supply. The finding gives researchers a novel approach to understanding diseases ranging from autism to multiple sclerosis, and strengthens the bridge between neuroscience and immunology...."

"No, it’s ineffective because it only protects about 50% of people who receive it every year. "

No, it's ineffective because evolution is real.

Your claim has also morphed. 50% protected year one, 75% protected year two. And so on. Each year getting more and more protected.

If your claims were the reason, then we'd already be fully protected.

But they're not.

"Here’s the info on it:"

Which appears to be a completely different claim you were holding before and were supposed to support with evidence...

"Additionally, this recent discovery between the gut and the brain has been hailed as groundbreaking:"

Yeah, but it still doesn't support your conspiracy claims.

I guess the brain rot is so advanced you can't remember what you claimed and what you are supposed to support with evidence.

"Science has yet to show ANY evidence of ways that autism can be avoided. "

100% irrelevant. It shows ZERO link between vaccines and autism.

"Anecdotal evidence ..."

Is irrelevant since they have ZERO ability to diagnose the problem, nor proves a causation.

"Your claim has also morphed. 50% protected year one, 75% protected year two. And so on. Each year getting more and more protected.

If your claims were the reason, then we’d already be fully protected."

Sigh. Is it even worth it to point out that yet again, you are showing your lack of reading comprehension, or just outright lying now?

So much for intelligent discussion on a science blog site.

"Is it even worth it to point out that yet again, you are showing your lack of reading comprehension, or just outright lying now?"

I don't know. There's usually no point in making shit up and claiming it. Even if you put an "or" in there to make it appear like you're "open minded".

Nope, I read everything fine. The response isn't one that agrees with you nor one that you have a valid claim against, so you just insinuate a problem without giving one.

And here I was thinking that you'd decided after all you accepted proof was needed, not mere claim.

Seems like it only belongs as a requirement for people not agreeing with your prejudice.

"They’re offering the benefit of their tragic experiences. They’re not just going to shut up and go away. "

They don't have to.

What they DO have to do is not make hysterical claims based on lack of knowledge or evidence that will lead to even more death and tragedy amongst children.

Have you ever seen the "survivors" of Polio? One of my teachers was such a one.

Anyone who had seen what Polio does to children would NEVER let vaccination stop it being prevented.

They sure as hell might if they have to choose between that or permanent mental incapacitation for their children.

... bringing the conversation back around, how many parents would have chosen to vaccinate with this swine flu vaccine, knowing AHEAD OF TIME their child's risk for permanent and debilitating narcolepsy would increase 12-fold upon receipt of the vaccine?

"They sure as hell might if they have to choose between that or permanent mental incapacitation for their children."

Vaccination doesn't mean choosing permanent mental incapacitation for their children, but choosing NOT to is.

"how many parents would have chosen to vaccinate with this swine flu vaccine"

All of them who knew that no vaccination means death for their child.

I had a question for Abbie. Is it possible that viruses or DNA existed on or before the origin of life? The reason I ask is because viruses have their own DNA. And, yet viruses seem to not necessarily qualify as a life form, and appear to be some kind of a precursor stage to the existence of life. I don't know. I hear people kick this question around and debate it, and I was wondering if Abbie has an opinion. Thanks

Potholer54 has a beginner set of videos on this.

Short version: DNA today is highly evolved. It was most likely an RNA planet before a DNA planet, and that they evolved into DNA when they found that having more information allowed more complex processes to be maintained and these processes led to higher survival rates.

And before RNA, it was likely carbon based fragments that were catalysed on clay soils.

And before that, chemistry.

But the short answer to your question is, yes, DNA would have occurred before what we currently call life, but it would contain replication with modification of descent, which is all that is required for *evolution*.

And RNA have the same feature.

And catalysed reactions too.

WHOOOO!!!!! GMO HSV-1 vs Cancer

sa smith — Wed, 27 May 2015 08:36:54 +0000

WHOOOO!!!!! GMO HSV-1 vs Cancer

WHOOOOOOOO!!!!

April 7, 2010:

Using HSV-1 to cure metastatic melanoma

May 26, 2015:

Talimogene Laherparepvec Improves Durable Response Rate in Patients With Advanced Melanoma

WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!

They just published the results of Phase III clinical trials of a herpes simplex-1 genetically modified to kill cancers, specifically, advanced melanoma.

The GMO virus has a name now: T-VEC.

And instead of looking at 50 patients who all got the virus, this study was a group of 436 patients , randomly assigned 2:1 to a treatment (T-VEC) group, or GM-CSF only group (the immunostimulatory molecule the virus also delivers). GM-CSF only is not a placebo arm-- There was already some suggestion that it could be beneficial, getting more antigen-presenting cells around to convince cytotoxic T-cells to do their job killing the cancer.

The question was really 'Is this GMO virus that does stuff and delivers GM-CSF better than GM-CSF alone?'

Answer?

Yes!

They look at lots of stats in this paper, but the outcomes that mean the most to people suffering from cancer are 1) side-effect profile, and 2) how this treatment effects your odds of survival.

1-- The side-effect profile of this therapy is, like before, pretty damn awesome. For those of us who have watched loved ones suffer through surgery, radiation, chemo, the side-effects of T-VEC are, again, a walk in the park:

Frequently occurring AEs (adverse events) with T-VEC were flu-like symptoms (including fatigue, chills, and pyrexia). The only grade 3 or 4 AE occurring in ≥ 2% of T-VEC–treated patients was cellulitis; there were no treatment-related deaths. In the context of toxicity reported for some other melanoma therapies, the low rate of grade 3 or 4 AEs with T-VEC is notable, particularly when considering combined immunotherapy approaches.

2-- While some patients responded *very* well to this treatment, it is *NOT* a magic, guaranteed cure. In the final time-point (about 4 years or so), 189 of the 295 patients in the treatment arm died. That is ~64%. Not a magic cure. But, they could use these rates to predict how long, statistically, a person diagnosed with Stage III/Stave IV melanoma could expect to survive, given this treatment:

12 months: 74% (74 out of 100 patients who get this treatment are alive one year later).
24 months: 50%
36 months: 39%
48 months: 33%

While these arent 100%, they are an improvement over the GM-CSF only. The earlier the patient is treated, the better. And, if the patients never had 'systematic treatment' (chemo), results were better too.

Translation?

GMO HSV-1 makes sense as a first-line therapy (Diagnosed-->GMO HSV-1), not as a 'last resort'. All the more so when you compare the side-effect profiles of this treatment, vs old school approaches.

Perfect cure-all for melanoma? Nope.

Absolutely amazing viral technology that has the potential to save some lives while minimizing suffering? Yup.

I love the future.

sa smith Wed, 05/27/2015 - 04:36

Tags

Categories

Did they say anything about what stage were the patients' melanoma?

Yup!

In each group, ~30% were Stage IIIb or c, and ~70% were Stave IV.

Woot! This is so awesome! I'm sure they're already working on the differences between the patients who had 4 year survival and the ones who didn't to either improve the T-VEC or target patients who are more likely to respond to the treatment (or both).

thats so cool!

OK, but what does this have to do with Agribusiness?

They don't want to use GMOs like this and create a crop for 10 million hectares in Idaho and make a profit off it.

Agribusiness aren't against EU rules because this GMO product would have to be labelled as GMO product, but because corn, wheat, or whatever, coming from the USA have to be labelled as GMO, when NONE OF THEM have this change (or any like it) in it.

So, yes, like Stem Cell research, GMO is another method of getting a medical product that we would be otherwise unable to get at this time.

But we don't want Stem Cell research to take on a massive business role such that all our food is produced with stem cells from foetuses (aborted or not).

And we don't want GMOs to do that either.

Why?

Because it's completely unnecessary and has absolutely no way of containing the problem if the hopeful wishes of the proponents turn out to have been... overoptimistic.

i think I may have an illustration of the problem here.

The push for GMOs in bulk food production is like taking DDT and spraying it over every field where mosquitoes breed to get rid of malaria.

It's a good idea to get rid of malaria and killing mosquitoes is a known way of doing so.

Defenders of GMO foods and detractors of "anti-GMO" proponents are both looking at it like the defenders of the *abuse* of DDT as an insecticide to spray everywhere.

Banning GMOs is no more being demanded than DDT is banned by the WHO.

I hope that helps.

GMO Virus: Long-term success treating Hemophilia B

sa smith — Tue, 14 Apr 2015 15:58:03 +0000

GMO Virus: Long-term success treating Hemophilia B

One of my favorite stories is the tale of a GMO virus deployed to treat Hemophilia B:

Gene therapy for Hemophilia B

... Hemophilia B is a disease in males caused by point mutations/deletions/etc in the clotting Factor IX gene. If you dont make Factor IX, you wont clot properly, and will have all of the health issues we associate with hemophilia.

... The scientists in this paper took six Hemophilia B patients, and treated them with an Adeno-Associated Virus-8 (two at low, medium, and high doses of virus) that contained a functional copy of the Factor IX gene.

Four of them of them bumped up their Factor IX production enough to go off pharmaceutical Factor IX treatment all together (even with one of the dudes being a marathon runner!), and the two others went from needing treatments several times a week, to only needing a treatment once every couple weeks or so.

Okay, I wrote that post late 2011.

They published an update late last year:

Long-Term Safety and Efficacy of Factor IX Gene Therapy in Hemophilia B

When you are treating a genetic disease with gene therapy, the point is to treat them once and be done with it. Broken gene-->Fix the gene--> DONE! And its reeeeeally important that everything works well the first try, because second/third/fourth tries with GMO viruses complicate things.

See, your body doesnt 'know' the GMO viruses are there to help. So your immune system sees the GMO virus and generates antibodies to kill those viruses the next time they see it. The more times you have to administer a GMO virus, the more antibodies a person will make, the less likely second/third/fourth doses will do a damn thing.

So what happened in these patients up to four years after they were treated? How good was that one dose?

They followed the six from the previous study, plus another four (who got the 'high' dose of virus), who all got one dose of Adenovirus-Associated Virus-8, genetically modified to deliver a functional copy of Factor IX.

The treatment was safe-- There were no terrible side effects. Some had annoyed livers right at treatment, but prednisone fixed that. No long-term problems.

And boy, did this GMO virus help long-term!

The patients were nowhere near 'normal' levels of Factor IX, BUT, the viruses got enough functional Factor IX floating around to:

The annual amount of factor IX concentrate that was administered to all 10 patients dropped from a median of 2613 IU per kilogram (interquartile range, 1671 to 4513) in the year before vector infusion to 206 IU per kilogram (interquartile range, 79 to 948) in the year after vector infusion (P=0.002), a relative reduction of approximately 92%. In the high-dose group, the amount of factor IX concentrate that was used dropped from a median of 2613 IU per kilogram (interquartile range, 1627 to 3487) to 92 IU per kilogram (interquartile range, 38 to 395), a relative reduction of 96% (P=0.03). Despite this decline in factor use, the annual number of bleeding episodes for the entire cohort of 10 patients decreased from a median of 15.5 bleeding episodes (interquartile range, 10.3 to 19.3) 1 year before vector infusion to 1.5 episodes (interquartile range, 1.0 to 4.0) in the year after vector infusion, a relative reduction of 90% (P=0.009). When only patients in the high-dose group were considered, the annual number of bleeding episodes decreased from a median of 16.5 episodes (interquartile range, 12.5 to 27.0) to 1.0 episode (interquartile range, 0.8 to 2.5), a relative reduction of 94% (P=0.03).

...

The overall reduction in the amount of factor IX concentrate that was administered over the duration of the study was more than 3 million units, resulting in a financial savings of more than $2.5 million based on 2014 prices.

The amount of therapeutic Factor IX these patients needed (on average) dropped from 2613 IU/kg to 206. The people who got the 'high' dose of virus dropped that down to 92 IU/kg. They went from 15-16 'bleeding episodes' a year, to one.

ONE.

And not only were these individuals lives improved, not being shackled to a hospital for IV treatments of Factor IX, not having regular 'bleeding episodes', their ability to live without these treatments saved $2.5 million.

'GREAT JOB!' to the scientists and physicians involved with this, and I hope they get this therapy to more folks ASAP!

sa smith Tue, 04/14/2015 - 11:58

Tags

gene therapy

GMO

virology

Thanks for the heads-up. This is excellent work that our scientist and physicians are doing. but will this treatment be available to everyone despite their economic situation or it will be more available to those who are rich or its its going to be made affordable enough for everyone?

i agree .. this treatment would be released to other people who are suffering from this disease..,, do you think the treatment will be free?. wont it be costly for developing and undeveloped countries? which will not be fair for those who are sick but have no money .14047366

I do not think that the treatment will be free because;
it is a new treatment so governments will not endorse the treatment especially in developing countries, it is not a major problem like AIDS or Ebola for example as it only affects a small population of people, lastly the treatment is still in trial phase.

@3
15083820

Wow! Really interesting stuff. My brother is a haemophiliac and this would really save my family from the stress and hospital visits if he received this treatment.

It is always such a pleasure to see other people's hard work pay off, well done to those scientists and physicians. I think that, since Hemophilia b is such a rare disorder to be born with, the treatment will be costly. I also think that hospitals should think of having some kind of "waiting list" for the treatment that can cater for those who cannot afford , judging by how serious their condition is.
u15023088

RE: #6

I agree that hospitals should having some kind of waiting list for the treatment for those who need it and cannot afford it, however, how do the hospitals decide who needs the treatment more than the next person?? Correct me if I am wrong but doesn't Haemophilia B affect males all in the same way? 15083820

considering how successful genetic modification has become, do you think that scientist will be able to cure genetic diseases like huntington's completely by stopping nerve cell degeneration?

That is remarkable! This treatment will without a doubt make a difference in many people's lives and agree that it should be made available especially in under-developed countries. The success of this treatment definitely shows the great potential that genetic modification has in possibly treating other genetic diseases.

Wow! I think that it is outstanding that they have managed to find a treatment. I agree with the comments above that it will most likely not be free or inexpensive as the disorder is quite rare and as we have seen, most other rare illness treatments are very expensive. I think that there should be awareness and funding from the government so people in need can receive the treatment.

This is such a remarkable discovery... A step forward in the genetic world.

RE: #6

Yes, I definitely think that with the advancment of genetic modification scientists and physicians will come up with a cure for Huntington’s Disease. I read recently that, The National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, have performed and are still in the process of performing several clinical trials that attempt to control and eventually cure the disease by hindering the progressive break down of nerve cells.
15083820

This is so good to hear. Medicine and science are really making remarkable headway. I just want to know are there any other forms of hemophilia and do they have a miracle drug too?
15068456

Hats-off to the great scientific minds behind this effective and easily admnistered treatment. It will definitely improve the quality of life for all those afflicted by this unfortunate condition.

This is really amazing. i have a dear friend who suffers from this condition and i am not sure if he knows about this treatment, and its great long term effects, but i cannot wait to tell him.

I'm constantly amazed by the heights human intelligence and ability continues to ascend to! This is another giant leap for mankind. Governments and corporates must continue supporting and enabling scientific research. I'm so pleased for hemophiliacs and the positive difference this virus is going to make in their lives. Nicely done indeed....

From the positive results of this therapy, what is the turnaround time to implementation in mainstream health practices. Are there any certifications that need to be "checked off the list" before implementation ?

A well thought research since Hemophilia B is a difficult disease to treat and is potentially life threatening. My concern is the use of prednisone, I want to know how long were they on it because since is a glucocorticoid and prolong use can lead to gastric ulceration which may lead to other complications.

Congratulations are in order for the remarkable work these scientists have done. You mentioned in the post that some patients experienced minor complications like irritated livers would you care to explicitely elaborate on that, how severe were these irritations?
u15073883

Interesting work indeed. Can I please have a link to journals or any online posts by these scientists following this particular research, I would like to read further about this.

I am wondering about the virus. Was this virus once one that caused people to be sick or is it just called a virus because of its characteristics?

This is awesome that people affected with this genetic disorder have the possibility of cured and living normal lives. For how long was the prednisone administered and why were their livers annoyed?

Although Haemophilia B is thought to be not a major disease as Ebola it can be life threatening. Thumbs up to the scientists that found the therapy, not only did they achieve in helping improving peoples lives but it saved a huge amount of COST on treatments which should give less reasons for governments to not offer the therapy to the poor.
I presume the 10 patients went through extensive clinical and laboratory monitoring and showed great improvements with less side effects why is the therapy still on trial and not dispatched the the majority in need.

The work scientists do is remarkable. Shows how one does not necessarily have to be a medical doctor in order to improve lives of people.

It does ,however,leave me a bit to confused. Does the treatment of Haemophilia destroy the recessive trait in affected males to such an extent that when they have children, they have no chances of having Haemophilia?
Could it not be better to destroy the recessive trait in carrier parents, than to have to impose treatment to affected children?
u15062415

Monique; All viruses cause people to exhibit some "sickness" symptoms to some extent. Swollen lymph nodes, for instance, are symptomatic of the ways your body fights the virus.

Tshikovhi; Funny thing about viruses; they tend to propagate freely. A virus of a certain type could be made to infect an entire quarantine-room full of people, through sneezing or other transmission vectors. I imagine it would be important to keep them quarantined, however, to prevent the virus from mutating. Then we'd have another problem on our hands entirely...

The discovery of the Adeno-Associated virus-8 to save lives of people with Haemophilia can be said to be one of the best discoveries in years.It is a new discovery but yet working miracles, it is said that it might be costly but i think health organisations and goverment could work together to making this treatment available to every individual.Thank you to the hard working scientists who aim at making a difference in people's lives.Is this treatment available in all countries or only in specific countries?

The strides being made in medicine are amazing. Such beneficial medicine should not be patented so as to help those who cannot afford it, before this is done, the small print, such as the minor complications mentioned should definitely be fixed , gene therapy focuses on biological functions crucial to human survival and side effects that affect that can be fatal.

RE:24

I don't not think that the recessive trait, Haemophilia can be destroyed, it can only be treated like with all other genetic disorders. I do agree with you however ,that it would be better to destroy the disease all together so that the parents do not produce offspring who suffer from the disease. I am certain destroying the recessive allele of Haemophilia and other genetic disorders are going to be the next big advancement in medicine.
15083820

This thus shall save more male lives, i mean haemophilia is n issue especially among male people and it i affecting th generation to come after the male. the dicovery of the agent will thus help stop this.
15166873

It is heart warming to see that there is studies being done on this virus because although it is a rare disease it can take over someone's life completely. Well done to the scientist and physicians who initiated and succeeded in this study to treat haemophiliacs.

I doubt that the treatment would be effective over 10 years. it is too early to claim that the treatment is long term. There wouldn't be enough healthy genes in the first treatment to flush out the mutated genes that is why treated hemophiliacs will still experience bleeding (although not as often). Over time the percentage of mutated genes would begin to increase again.

This is an excellent treatment that has been developed by scientists as it improves the lives of people suffering with Hemophilia.
But what would the cost of this treatment be and would these costs be reduced for people who receive little - no income?
15045073

Well done to the scientists for making a progressive breakthrough in medicine. Hope this changes the lives of people.

It is amazing to hear about the great discoveries by scientists in the medical field. If this treatment is sustainable, it could improve and lengthen the lives of many who are affected by the disease. Haemophilia is a genetically inherited disease and if cured, can decrease the risk in offspring. However the long term effects of GMO's are unknown and I sincerley hope that this treatment is resilient.
15021565

Congratulations to the scientists for such a great discovery. We were told that GMOs are harmful but this counteracts all other ideas. Let's hope for the best in the future.

This means great things for low income populations such as india. The Prevelance rate in India is up to 1: 10000 now and continues to rise. Lower costing methods like this will pave a way for more therapies to be created and established in countries such as India and give an option to people who couldnt usually afford any treatment.

Can we really say that people of low income will be able to access treatments like this ? The research is extremely positive but i do feel that many affected to people will continue to suffer in countries without free medical care

This goes to show how one concept can be bad in one aspect but good in another. Out of curiosity, what would the implications be on a patient who would need a mechanical heart valve to replace their own faulty heart valve and also happens to be a haemophiliac?

Well done to the scientists who have worked so hard on finding the treatment of Hemophilia B.This means that the male generation can still go on with people being treated with this disease.u14231591

This is phenomenal. Tremendous strides are being made

WOW. Never thought its possible .this is exactly what i want to do. MEDICAL RESEARCH thanks for the encouragements ....
u15156827

RE: #38

Haemophilia patients are more likely to have blood transfusions, increasing their chance of receiving contaminated blood.

This able will same Hemophilia B patients lot of time as they will be no constant visitation of hospitals, this is a wonderful.
u15156924

AFAIK, gene therapy (as being trialled by the NHS in the UK) is currently still pretty pricey - the savings from reduced treatment needs probably come pretty close to the cost of treating in the first place. However, once they get into economies of scale, I bet the cost of the gene therapy will drop and then you'll see NICE or similar start to approve treatments like this. That's going to be a great moment. Here's hoping this treatment can be equally successfully adapted for other common diseases like CF.

Cutting-edge influenza research frozen

sa smith — Thu, 26 Feb 2015 19:21:07 +0000

Cutting-edge influenza research frozen

This past weekend I hung out at a brand-spanking new con, the Atlanta SciFi and Fantasy Expo. Made a bunch of new friends-- including the proud owner of an actual T.A.R.D.I.S. Randy and I had a marvelous time talking about ghosts, yetis, and vaccines/viruses. I sent him a link to my FreeOK talks including this one:

Randy booped right back with this:

NIH moving ahead with review of risky virology studies (February 25, 2015)

I gave that talk June 23, 2012, but I started talking about one topic in that presentation a bit earlier:

OMFG KILLER FLU WARBLEGARBLE TERRORISM AAAAAAAAAH!!! (April 2, 2012)

Well there seems to be an absence of a certain ornithological piece: a headline regarding mass awareness of a certain avian influenza variety… (June 29, 2012)

Apparently, the US government has given some contract to some stats company to calculate the 'risks and benefits' of researching deadly pathogens, including lab-evolved influenza. And theyre taking a year to figure out whether studying deadly pathogens is a good idea.

I stand by my statements from 2012. We can either study these pathogens in labs now, or we can wait for them to evolve into pandemics, and then try to figure out how they work/how to stop them.

All I can think about is 2015 Abbie, hopping into a T.A.R.D.I.S., going back to 1970 and telling President Nixon "There is this pathogen, HIV? Here is a vial of it! Scientists need to start studying it NOW!!!" and a bunch of politicians and luddite scientists grumping about saying "Well, we better not. Could be dangerous. Maybe the terrorists will get it."

I apologize to Alan Dove for copy/pasting a large part of his comment on the Science article here, but I have to highlight it:

Microbiologists have been deliberately altering the pathogenicity and transmissibility of deadly human pathogens since Pasteur. What's changed is that now we can elicit and study those changes much more precisely, and that we mandate much stricter safety protocols than we did a century ago. Those changes actually make the work safer, not riskier.

This is so frustrating.

sa smith Thu, 02/26/2015 - 14:21

Tags

Politics

virology

influenza

"I stand by my statements from 2012. We can either study these pathogens in labs now, or we can wait for them to evolve into pandemics, and then try to figure out how they work/how to stop them."

Don't forget option three—place head in sand and pray. That one seems to be popular these days.

Abbie, you are super-duper cool, and you have a real talent for communicating science to laypeople. You're right up on the list with Ethan Siegel (astrophysics), and you & he could be the next generation of Sagan and Tyson.

My only critique of the video is that there's a room echo in the high mid-range vocal frequencies that makes it a bit more difficult to understand what you're saying. The fix for that in the future is to wear a condenser mic and have the production people adjust the frequency equalization.

Questions: If I understood you correctly, you said that the "scary experiment" with avian flu and ferrets, was actually benign and was seeking a path toward a vaccine for the expected H2H avian flu. Is that correct? From that I get the impression that you agree with those who believe that publishing viral genomes and developing novel viruses is not a substantial enough threat to warrant limits on publication. Is that correct, or what's your position on that debate, and do you have any links to recommended articles?

Reason I ask is, I've thus far believed that publication of viral genomes and experiments that deal with enhanced pathogenicity, is a bad idea and should be limited in such a manner as to prevent potential bioterrorism risk. However I respect your knowledge and opinions, so I'm open to being persuaded to change my position on this.

Thanks-
-G.

Now we know how Abbie started an epidemic; time travel with pathogens, indeed!?!

I don't know, I can see both sides of the argument. To me, the issue of accidents is troubling, in that whatever people do, there will be accidents. Whether it be driving cars, flying planes, operating nuclear reactors or simply turning on the hot water when you meant to turn on the cold. The same holds true for deliberately creating pandemic viruses.

The question is whether the fallout is acceptable. If you wreck a car, maybe a couple individuals or families get killed. If you crash a plane, maybe a couple hundred people get killed. If you fuck up your pandemic virus research, potentially hundreds of millions of people get killed. If you read articles about the issue it's very troubling what some of the things are that critics are calling for because it means that a lot of what should be some of the most basic shit isn't even being done currently. Always remember the examples of lowriders and minitrucks, Abbie- just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.

More voices call for action on lab biosafety
Robert Roos | News Editor | CIDRAP News | Jul 31, 2014
http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2014/07/more-voices-call-act…

Should We Shut Down Our Bioweapons Labs?
Jul 31, 2014
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/health/a10910/qa-should-bioweap…

Biocontainment Laboratories: Addressing the Terror Within
Deborah Cotton, MD, MPH, Deputy Editor
Ann Intern Med. 2014;161(8):609-610. doi:10.7326/M14-1668
http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=1891309

PPE for Ebola: This is how Emory does it

sa smith — Tue, 21 Oct 2014 14:39:20 +0000

PPE for Ebola: This is how Emory does it

Remember how I said my lab wanted to do a PPE response video to Sanjay Guptas terrifying attempt? But we couldnt for liability reasons?

Now there is an even better option! We can all take a peek into how Ebola patients are treated at Emory University, and get to see their protocols for putting on/taking off PPE:

Emory Healthcare launches Ebola protocols website as resource on prevention and patient care

But before you can see their videos, you have to 1) register, and 2) agree not to hold Emory University responsible if you get infected with Ebola.

The information provided on this site, including links to relevant websites and the information contained therein, is for general informational purposes only. The information and materials provided on this site are intended to assist hospitals and health care providers in preparing for the care of patients diagnosed with or suspected of having the Ebola virus in their facilities. The information and materials provided on this site are not to be used as a substitute for or to supplement any independent professional evaluation or professional medical judgment in the care for patients diagnosed with or suspected of having the Ebola virus.

While making reasonable efforts to ensure that the information provided is accurate and current, Emory Healthcare makes no representations or warranties about the quality, content, accuracy, reliability, completeness, adequacy, or timeliness of the information provided on this site. Nothing on this site is intended as a recommendation or endorsement of any specific tests, procedures, processes, clinical protocols, treatment, opinions, commercial products or services, or other information that may be mentioned in materials and information on this site.

The content on this site does not constitute medical, legal or any other professional advice and does not create a physician-patient relationship. Hospitals and health care providers should consult other state, local, and federal resources, including, but not limited to, resources and guidelines established by the World Health Organization and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in developing policies, procedures, protocols, and training materials for the care for patients diagnosed with or suspected of having the Ebola virus.

EMORY HEALTHCARE SHALL NOT IN ANY EVENT BE LIABLE OR RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, PUNITIVE, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR LOSS ARISING OUT OF OR IN ANY WAY CONNECTED WITH THE RELIANCE ON, USE OR MISUSE OF THE INFORMATION OR LACK OF INFORMATION ON THIS SITE OR WITH THE DELAY OR INABILITY TO USE THIS SITE, OR FROM ANY INFORMATION, DOCUMENTS, SERVICES, OR OTHER MATERIAL OBTAINED THROUGH THIS SITE, OR OTHERWISE ARISING OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SITE.

BY USING THIS SITE, YOU ARE AGREEING THAT YOU HAVE READ THE DISCLAIMER, UNDERSTAND IT AND AGREE TO BE BOUND BY IT. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE, YOU MAY NOT USE THIS SITE AND YOU MAY NOT REGISTER AS A USER.

I personally think it is well worth the 10 seconds to register to see exactly how they are doing things in the Emory isolation ward. These are the people who have trained for years to care for people with 'scary' diseases, including Ebola. This is how professionals do it, not random physicians with a camera crew.

After you register, in the left-hand column, click 'Videos', then 'Donning Personal Protective Equipment' and 'Doffing Personal Protective Equipment'.

They take many more precautions than we do in a BSL-3 (as well as they should), but youll see echoes of what I described, plus you can see the weird-twisty-motion-off glove thing I was talking about :-D

You will also fully understand how absurd Guptas video was.

sa smith Tue, 10/21/2014 - 10:39

Tags

Categories

As someone who is not at all familiar with medical protocols like this, I just watched Gupta's video and then the Emory videos. Even to a layperson, Gupta looks like a spastic idiot -- I would not let this guy near me as a patient.

What worries me is that Gupta says that he was following CDC protocol. Is the protocol written in such a way that if you are an idiot, you will act like this? My understanding was that the CDC protocols were very thorough and clear; from watching these two videos there is no connection between what Sanjay Gupta was doing and what the Emory Healthcare professionals were doing. Are the Emory videos following CDC protocol, or following a more thorough protocol of their own?

Hi Caede!

What they did in that video is above and beyond what I personally do for a BSL-3 facility, and, I seriously doubt there are many hospitals with *that* gear, *those* facilities, and *that* kind of training.

The reality of what hospitals can do in an emergency situation is probably more like what we do in BSL-3 facilities, which has thus far been fairly standard in the three institutions I have worked at. I really cant imagine research scientists all do the same thing, but then the CDC tells physicians to do something radically different.

I have no clue where Gupta got the idea to do that stupid routine.

I thought licking the chocolate sauce off his fingers was...[puts on sunglasses]...in poor taste.

Maybe I should make my co-workers watch this and threaten them with having to go through all that if they don't start wearing their $^^#%^%^ gloves in the lab. (And stop touching their faces with their gloves!) Nothing we work with is specifically "hot", but it is blood from humans, so it is assumed to be pretty nasty.

Do personal protective equipment have a coating which changes color when in contact with bodily fluids? This benefits practice sessions and actual situations. Knowing the location on the PPEs alerts one prior to removal. A healthcare worker may have to exit the environment earlier due to increase likelihood of fluid contact.

Top Secret Ebola serums, how do they work?

sa smith — Mon, 25 Aug 2014 18:24:56 +0000

Top Secret Ebola serums, how do they work?

One wonderful thing that has come two US citizens being infected Ebola (and successfully treated for the disease) is *education* the general public is getting about this, frankly, 'scary' virus.

Im not talking about the bizarre nonsense/missed opportunity posted by Sanjay Gupta and his 'producer' Danielle Dellorto. Of course science bloggers have capitalized on this opportunity to educate people (its kinda what we *do*). But some journalists in main-stream-media, unlike Gupta and Dellorto, have taken a moment to speak to actual scientists working on Ebola/the technology to make the 'secret serum' the two US patients got.

West Africa: How Does the Ebola Serum Work? an Ebola Serum Researcher Explains

How the experimental Ebola serum works (Warning: video link!)

Those stories featured Dr. Charles Arntzen, a National Academy of Science member with *decades* of experience using plants to help treat viral disease, and, Dr. Erica Ollmann Saphire, a researcher at Scripps who figured out what the anti-Ebola antibodies used in this therapy 'look like', and how they work. Im so excited these kinds of scientists, down and dirty scientists, are getting to talk about what they love.

But I dont think either of those articles really explain well how this therapy could *WORK*.

We really have two options:

1-- Two of the antibodies in this mix are 'neutralizing antibodies'. This means, these two antibodies 'stick' to Ebola in such a way, that the protein Ebola needs to use to infect cells, cant interact with the new host cell. Its like if you were about to play the violin, and someone put boxing gloves on your hands. Its not gonna happen.

2--One of the antibodies in the mix is non-neutralizing. "If it doesnt stop the virus, what good is it, eh?" you might ask. Well, antibodies are good for more than just neutralization. When a cell is infected with Ebola, it will produce Ebola proteins (duh). Proteins that are supposed to show up on the outside of the virus, will show up on the outside of a cell (of course, as the babby viruses bud off). Non-neutralizing antibodies can still help stop an Ebola infection by sticking to the outside of an infected cell. Covered in antibodies, an infected cell will either:
a) Die via getting blown up by the complement system: Complement dependent cytotoxity
b) Die via getting blown up by a Natural Killer cell (or alternative immune cell): Antibody-dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity

That is how the serum *could* work. By killing infected cells, and preventing free virus from infecting new cells.

Thats how it *could* work.

That doesnt mean thats how it *did* work.

*If* it did work.

*If* the serum worked via #1, it seems like it would have taken at least 48 hours to see much of a result. The Ebola life-cycle is ~48 hours. So if viruses were getting neutralized, you wouldnt notice much of anything until the cycle was interrupted by the neutralizing antibodies. You would have 48 hours of new viruses being released, before they could be neutralized.

But according to Sanjay (warning auto-play video!!), Kent Brantly was feeling better within one hour of receiving the drug.

The only thing I can think of that would work *that* fast in this serum is "2a: Complement dependent cytotoxicity". It would be like hyperacute rejection of tissue/organ transplants-- antibodies would bind to Ebola infected cells, the antibodies would set off the complement cascade, and all those infected cells would be dead like THAT *snaps-fingers*.

Xenotransplantation: current status and a perspective on the future

YAY!

... No yay. If you were in the midst of a full-blown Ebola infection, you would have LOTS of infected cells dying at the same time. You would FEEL LIKE CRAP. CRAAAAAAP. Remember those GMO tumor-killing viruses that Im always talking about? One of their side-effects is 'feeling like crap' because youve got a bunch of dead tumor floating around. I would expect a bunch of dead ebola cells floating around would have a similar effect.

... But Kent Brantly was feeling better within one hour of receiving the drug.

:-/

Look, I love technology, I love the idea of the Top Secret Serum, be we do not know if it helped treat the two US patients, and if it did, how.

There are still lots of bad things that could happen if it is rushed into patients without the proper trials. The antibodies could bind to some human protein and cause momentary autoimmunity. Depending on the target, this could vary in severity. The antibodies could bind to a TON of virus and mess up peoples kidneys. They could start complement mediated cell lysis and severe, if not deadly, immune activation in patients.

If you really fucking love science, you have to love the boring clinical trials, like putting the therapy into healthy people to make sure nothing bad happens (or something tolerably bad happens). You have to be able to temper the *chance* you might save lives during an outbreak, with the *chance* you might make things worse. Or, even though a treatment might look perfect on paper, you have to be able to admit that maybe, it might, perhaps... not do anything.

Fingers crossed scientists can get something worked out for the folks in Africa and the medical teams trying to save them. Fast.

sa smith Mon, 08/25/2014 - 14:24

Tags

Categories

Love how the NHS have magiced up a dose of ZMapp from the WHO, when all the doses were supposedly handed out already. In my head, the NHS and WHO were playing high-stakes 'swapsies', eg "You give us some ZMapp and we'll sequence the shizzle out of some ebola blood samples for you, get you some more full genomes... And we'll throw in a visit to the Tower of London for whoever couriers the dose over..."

"If you really fucking love science, you have to love the boring clinical trials"

Best quote in a science blog ever!

You outline the possible benefits of non-neutralizing antibodies to Ebola. I would urge caution as I can imagine some negative complications. A well known phenomenon in the Dengue world is called antibody dependent enhancement wherein a prior infection with a different strain of dengue causes non neutralizing antibodies to other strains. These non neutralizing antibodies increase the infection with other strains leading to more likely/severe disease. Surely this was a consideration made by the folks who developed ZMapp.

On a different note, I thought that Ebola and other enveloped viruses do not bud off and remained linked to host cells. This is important because you explained that this would be a mechanism by which non-neutralizing antibodies might tag infected cells for ADCC, NK CMI or opsonization. I would think that the relevant epitopes might be presented by MHC instead. IMHO.

Abbie Smith, today I first discovered your . . . endeavor to educate us on cutting edge science by providing the truth of things as you know it to be. I love it. Thank you very much.

GMO viruses + bacteria + GMO tobacco likely saved Ebola patients

sa smith — Mon, 04 Aug 2014 12:00:40 +0000

GMO viruses + bacteria + GMO tobacco likely saved Ebola patients

Oh, Sanjay Gupta.

Secret serum likely saved Ebola patients (warning: link has auto-play video, ugh)

Three top secret, experimental vials stored at subzero temperatures were flown into Liberia last week in a last-ditch effort to save two American missionary workers who had contracted Ebola, according to a source familiar with details of the treatment.

There was nothing top-secret about the experimental treatment given to the US Ebola patients.

The 'secret serum' is just a monoclonal antibody therapy for Ebola. Administering exogenous antibodies as a therapy for viral infections is an old-as-dirt idea.

ZMapp itself is a combination of the 'best' antibodies from MB-003 and ZMAb. How do I know this? Because this is information released by the company this July. And MB-003 and ZMAb are not exactly 'secret', seeing as they were published in two of the most high profile journals in the world, PNAS and Science.

What I think is super cool is how this therapy is made.

1a. Genetically modify a virus to encode the heavy chain of an anti-Ebola antibody. These antibodies are also genetically modified, btw, to not be as 'mouse-like' (they were initially produced in mice) and sometimes to be more 'human-like'. Putting antibodies from other animals into humans without genetic modification can mean trouble.

1b. Genetically modify a virus to encode the corresponding light chain of the anti-Ebola antibody.

WHY??

When both of these viruses infect a cell, one viral genome will make half the anti-Ebola antibody, the other viral genome will make the other half of the antibody. Together, the two viruses will make the anti-Ebola antibody!

2a. Put these GMO viral components into a bacteria, Agrobacterium tumefaciens.

2b. Infect a plant, like tobacco, with the Agrobacterium tumefaciens.

WHY??

You could just infect the plant with the viruses. So why introduce the bacteria into the equation? Because the viruses kinda suck at replicating in the plants. The bacteria helps get the viral genomes to as many parts of the plant as possible, which means lots and lots of cells in the plant are producing antibodies. This bumps up how much antibody you can purify from a single plant by a LOT.

3a. Infect GMO Nicotiana benthamiana with the bacteria.

3b. Wait.

3c. Purify your anti-Ebola antibodies.

WHY??

Plants are not people. In this case, Nicotiana benthamiana was genetically modified to inhibit the enzymes that make plant sugars plant-like, meaning the anti-Ebola antibodies will have more human-like sugars on the surface. This can be really important for some of the anti-viral properties of the antibodies.

After this genetic modification and infection with the bacteria+viruses, the plant leaves will produce a TON of anti-Ebola antibodies. Plants are a pretty cheap way to produce a lot of protein. Blow up the plant cells, purify your protein, and BAM!

A ton of anti-Ebola antibodies.

Do that with three different anti-Ebola antibodies, mix the antibodies together for an anti-Ebola cocktail, give them to people to see if it helps.

And indeed, if this therapy does prove to play an integral role in 'saving' these two US Ebola patients, we probably have a fairly cheap, readily up-scalable and modifiable way to treat the current Ebola epidemic.

GMO viruses + bacteria + GMO tobacco.

Not top secret.

EDIT: Since I drafted this post, CNN changed their headline/article to remove the 'secret'/'top secret' references. Stop sensationalizing things, CNN. The science is cool enough as is.

sa smith Mon, 08/04/2014 - 08:00

Tags

immunology

virology

ERV: thanks for this post! Using viruses, bacteria and tobacco plants to make an effective ebola treatment is a great application of genetic engineering. The ZMab name leads me to believe that they started with a mouse monoclonal antibody.

A point of clarification - the viruses used for this are RNA viruses (not retroviruses), and Agrobacterium is used to deliver these to plant cells because it is much easier and cheaper to make an Agrobacterium inoculum than it is a bunch of RNA (that could be used instead to infect the plants). Once a few cells are successfully "Agro-inoculated", the virus takes over, making new viruses and spreading through the plant.

One of the team that makes this secret serum was an undergrad worker in my lab. This story makes my job that much more rewarding. Very cool stuff.

Jerry-- It is incredible what we can do with todays technology :-D

Thanks for the details, Arthur! I was reading some reviews of this technology-- I should do a more in-depth post on it! And thank you for helping to train a kid who grew up to work on this technology!!

Art: So good to see your post! I hope you remember me - You and Joe Chappell taught me the basics of molecular biology at Univ of Kentucky thirty years ago. Glad to see the much maligned tobacco now being used to save the world! Was any of the research came out of the Tobacco Research Lab in Lexington as viruses were the focus of much work then?

I stumbled upon your blog when was reading about ebola and trying to figure out the truth from fiction. You seem to know more about this than I do so maybe you have an answer for me. If they originally used mice which is risky why is the cdc still ordering human cell engrafted mice? Are they still using mice? Why not the tobacco? Sorry if this is a silly question, I am really reaching deep to undestand this stuff. I barely passed my college science classes. :)

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=3fa1a58f3e29fe717d…

Hi Prakash,

I do indeed remember you. I am more than pleased that you give Joe and I some credit in teaching you molecular biology - this is just the sort of thing to get me fired up for another semester in the classroom.

About your question about the TRI: The general production platform for this product - making and purifying the antibody from N. benthamiana - may or may not have been pushed along by the tobacco buy-out of many years ago, but this turn of events did provide an incentive to find alternative uses for tobacco. Using Nicotiana species as protein production platforms is one such use, and this has been one focus of the current Kentucky Tobacco Research and Development Center. I do not believe the old Tobacco Research Institute was involved in that sort of research, though.

Abbie, thanks for the kind words. I am always amazed and pleased at the many directions kids in my lab take in their careers.

Very cool use of biotech and genetic engineering! Where else is this technology of using tobacco to grow antibody serum for treating diseases?

Mandy - they're not using human cells engrafted onto mice, they're using part of a mouse gene and part of a human gene.

When we make antibodies, there are two different parts, a "constant region" and a "variable region." The variable region is what actually latches onto the thing (ebola in this case), while the constant region is, well, constant. But only constant within species - mouse constant region looks different than human constant region.

But the variable regions are random, and we don't have any way to predict what sort of variable region will be good at binding ebola. But we can let the immune system figure it out for us. It's much easier (logistically and ethically) to immunize mice and find an antibody that works, but using antibodies with a mouse constant region wouldn't work very well (look at the link Abbie posted or google "serum sickness").

So scientists spliced together the gene for the variable region from the anti-ebola mouse antibody to a human constant region. So the gene codes for something that "looks like" a human antibody, but the business end came from an immunized mouse.

(also search this blog for "antibody + butt" for more explanation)

Niiiiiiice, I'd seen some references to this and wondered what had actually been done.

I'm getting a bit fed up with BBC News reporting "there is no vaccine or treatment for ebola." Er, no, actually, BBC, there are many experimental treatments that have shown promise (or even efficacy) in a variety of stages of animal testing or clinical trial. They just aren't licensed yet. But this outbreak may well be the humanitarian (or more likely financial) incentive needed to push the vaccines and treatments through. For example, a quick plug for a colleague's work: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2014/05/21/1316902111

Proving safety and efficacy in chimps is one thing - clearly, vaccines at this stage of development need to go into human safety and then efficacy trials. But we are not as far away from a way to tackle ebola as we think we are. I doubt any of these treatments/vaccines will be used for the current outbreak - but at least some of them will be ready for the next outbreak. And there *will* be a next outbreak /doom-mongering

Plant viruses are actually quite good at replicating in plant cells (they have low infectivity though). One of the viral component that was incorporated (the RNA-dependent-RNA polymerase) amplifies the initial message introduced into the plant genome by Agrobaterium tumefaciens, increasing the amount of antibodies made.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X05000071

Components from two different plant virus strains were used because it was found that the light and heavy chain will be produced in different cells if only one was used, thus making antibody assembly very hard.
http://www.pnas.org/content/103/40/14701.full.pdf

Dr. Brantly, in addition to the GMO produced mix of humanized mouse Abs, got a transfusion from a boy that he had previously cared for who had Ebola. The GMO treatement is certainly promising for the future, but transfusion with plasma from recovered patients is a more accessible possibility for the people who are infected now.

A few years ago one company came up with a gmo salmonella bacterium that was harmless to rats, dogs and monkeys. When introduced into a host system, it produces antibodies that gave the host a life time immunity toward the bacterium. This process was repeated for E. Coli using the exact same genetic switch using rats. It was theorized that this manner could be repeated for many other deadly bacterium and even applied to viruses. The problem was at the time was that it was illegal in the US to introduce a fully active bacterium or virus into a human body. I wondered how many lives, not including suffering from food contamination, could have been save over the years by letting us developed these antibodies.

IF GMO viruses which are man-made are cured in this way, how did GMO Virus "EBOLA" get introduced into the environment?

GMO Vaccine-Strain Measles vs Cancer

sa smith — Fri, 16 May 2014 09:00:02 +0000

GMO Vaccine-Strain Measles vs Cancer

So scientists cured a woman of a pervasive, treatment resistant multiple myeloma.

With a genetically modified, vaccine strain measles virus.

Remission of Disseminated Cancer After Systemic Oncolytic Virotherapy

*anti-vax-anti-GMOers-heads-explode*

The media is going nuts over this, but this is not a new idea/approach. Measles, and certain other viruses, can be domesticated and modified to kill cancers-- we call them oncolytic viruses.

Sometimes we straight-up genetically modify viruses for the explicit purpose of attacking a cancer. We have done this with Newcastle virus vs prostate cancer, Cowpox virus vs liver cancer, Herpes simplex virus vs breast & ovarian cancer, lots of different viruses vs lots of different cancers.

This is absolutely *the* future of cancer treatment-- we are only going to keep getting better at this.

This particular case, however, was a little different. I actually mentioned this back in 2011-- With measles, we didnt have to do much genetic modification. Measles ability to kill cancers evolved naturally in the laboratory. If you grow measles a long time in the lab, in cell lines (which are 'like cancer', kinda), theyll adapt to that 'cancer' environment. They will *need* something from tumor cells to replicate. Like, a protein that is over-expressed in cancer cells, but not normally found in healthy cells (I am not sure about the particular measles virus used in this particular study).

In this study, they had a measles vaccine strain virus, that had been 'addicted' to HeLa cells. It doesnt want 'normal' cells anymore. It wants yummy yummy tumors. And through its natural life-cycle, measles blows those tumors up. YAY!

Where does the GMO come in?

The virus could already do what researchers wanted, no need to genetically modify it to infect/kill the cancer. But to make it easy to track where the heck the virus was going after it was injected into patients, researchers genetically modified it to express human thyroidal sodium iodide symporter. This means any cells the viruses infected would also take up radioactive iodine, so researchers could track the virus in patients using SPECT/CT.

Also important: The two patients in this study had no anti-measles antibodies. We have all gotten two doses of the MMR vaccine (unless we have medical issues or our parents hate us). So, our immune system would fight the tumor-killing measles virus before it had a chance to kill the tumors. They do not elaborate in this paper, but Im assuming that since these women were born before the anti-vax fad, they likely got the measles vaccine, but their immune system 'forgot'-- because when researchers looked for anti-measles immunity in these two patients... there wasnt any.

SO! The idea is--

People with untreatable cancers
Virus that love to eat cancers
Inject people with untreatable cancers with viruses that love to eat cancer
Patients wont *immediately* fight off the helper viruses
Viruses kill cancer
Viruses eventually run out of food
Patients immune system kills remaining viruses
No more cancer

Did it work?

Kinda!

Researchers treated two patients. One patient did not totally clear their tumors. One did.

From here, scientists can understand why it worked in one patient/not the other, to improve the treatment in the future.

It is a wonderful, firm, strong, starting point.

USA Today had this quote from the patient:

"It was the easiest treatment by far with very few side effects. I hope it's the future of treating cancer infusion."

The side-effects she experienced:

The infusion time of 60 minutes included a brief interruption for severe headache that responded to diphenylhydramine and acetaminophen. Two hours later, the patient became febrile (temperature, 40.5°C), tachycardic (maximum heart rate, 175 beats/min), and hypotensive (minimum blood pressure, 73/33 mm Hg) with severe nausea and vomiting that responded to acetaminophen, meperidine, metoclopramide, lorazepam, and a cooling blanket. Fever recurred over the next few days, and a superficial venous thrombosis extending from the wrist to the upper humerus was detected.

That is not a walk in the park. Actually, thats insane. 105 F fever, insanely high heart rate, insanely low blood pressure... shit... and yet she said compared to the other things shes been though, it was 'easy'.

Damn.

I hope this is the future of treating cancer, too.

sa smith Fri, 05/16/2014 - 05:00

Tags

Categories

Excellent work, and you did a great job explaining it.

I'm intrigued by that list of side effects. Could those have been caused by her immune system going on overdrive to beat what it would have "interpreted" as a sudden massive infection?

@G
It's probably a combination of her immune system waking up due to huge amoungs of virus, and the straight damage the virus was doing to the cancer cells. Unplanned cell death produces a bunch of by-products that are massive warning signals to the body, and the body responds by mobilizing everything first, and only later working out which responses are needed (if at all).

Im assuming that since these women were born before the anti-vax fad, they likely got the measles vaccine, but their immune system ‘forgot’

Multiple-myeloma patients are also immunosuppressed (see around refs. [150], [151]).

They started with attenuated Edmonston, though, so it was already adapted to use CD46 instead of SLAM. The HeLa was just feeding the habit.