4 ms·

Woah. I know it's far too early to really speculate, but speculate I shall: would there be any inherent benefit in potentially using virophages instead of macr

• dspillett 16y ago
  I think one of the key blockers would be the fear that the designers don't fully make sure that the virophages damages only the target cells and doesn't decide to munch on more useful parts of our internal ecosystem when its intended food supply runs out (or if it mutates). Even if they have created something that definitely won't have adverse side effects (which isn't actually possible, I know, but bare with me on this for a second) they still have to convince the General Public that it is safe which could be an expensive PR job. Joe Schmo has seen too many zombie-virus movies and/or puts too much trust in things like Prince Commudgen's uninformed ramblings about grey goo, to trust anything they don't understand. Don't get me wrong: a fistful or few of such distrust is healthy for society, but from a commercial point of view it is just a potentially expensive problem to overcome. They would also hit the nutty god botherer problem: this might only be a virus (and a modification of one, not the creation of one from scratch) but it could be seen as creating new life, something only the bi-polar sky fairy is permitted to dabble in. And back to the impossibility of creating something that definitely won't have side effects for the patient and those around them: the companies need to be sure that the potential clean-up costs (i.e. litigation) or more than covered by the guaranteed profits - otherwise it is just safer to stick with the current treatment/business model, at least while it is turning a good profit. (A quick note on my use of "nutty god botherer" and "bi-polar sky fairy" as they have caused heated discussion before: the many religious people I know, and I presume other otherwise sensible ones, take those as facetious jokey definitions (i.e. as they are intended) - the people who get offended by this sort of thing tend to be people I don't mind offending!)
• cal5k 16y ago
  Argh, my comment is incredibly confused... partly because I wrote it at 1am after a long day. Macrophage = bacteriophage, and they attack bacteria, not viruses. The point I was actually trying to make is that bacteriophage treatments haven't really caught on in the west because it's expensive and time consuming - you have to create a specific line of bacteriophages for a specific bacteria, which is much more difficult than just using broad-spectrum antibiotics. I wonder if virophages, as a potential avenue for treatment, will run into the same issues... I suppose the difference here is that we don't yet have good treatments for many different types of viral infection.
• joeyo 16y ago
  > and obviously pharma companies have no interest in > advancing macrophage treatments. At the risk of seeming thick, why is that exactly?
  • biot 16y ago
    Some speculate that drug companies don't bother working on cures because it's far more profitable to sell perpetual treatments.
    • kiba 16y ago
      Would anybody be interested in one-time multibillion dollars profit-making opportunities? What prevent such formation of profit-making opportunities?
      • erikstarck 16y ago
        Three things: regulations, regulations, regulations.
      • danssig 16y ago
        There is an insane amount of money in drugs. Some of this money can be used to erect barriers to entry against such profit seekers. I don't know that that's the case, but it could be speculated at least.
  • cal5k 16y ago
    Sorry, I meant bacteriophage treatment.
• ajb 16y ago
  Well, there's the obvious advantage that macrophages don't eat viruses, they eat bacteria.