# Using Viruses to Fight Bacterial Infections



## 64K (Oct 17, 2014)

I admit I don't keep up with science as well as I should and I've never heard of this before but I have heard of antibiotics becoming less effective to fight bacterial infections due to bacteria building up resistance to antibiotics. This might be an effective way to treat infections in the future.

http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/10/designer-viruses-could-be-the-new-antibiotics/


----------



## rtwjunkie (Oct 17, 2014)

Amazing stuff!  The thing about antibiotics is there is not anything wrong with them,. and if they had always been used properly, they would still be effective on all bacterial infections.  Too many people have stopped taking them when they "feel better," which of course they would if 80-90% of the bacteria causing them problems were killed off.  The 3 to 4 extra days of antibiotics is to make sure the last bacteria are killed too. 

So, when the last few are allowed to survive, they learn a little about the drug, and build up some resistance.  Then it gets passed to someone else, where it "teaches" that person's bacterial infection they will undoubtedly will get one day.  Then they will do like over half the people do, and not take all their antibiotic schedule, because they too feel better at some point. 

If all people always took all their prescription of antibiotics, the various bacteria would never get a chance to learn about it, because they would be killed every time.  It's sad that we have to rely on viruses, which as we know if THEY go amok, as they surely will, we're screwed, because very little kills viruses.


----------



## Tatty_One (Oct 17, 2014)

Hmmmmm, sounds interesting, although in context you could argue..... "OK, lets fight Botulism (Bacterial) with Ebola (Viral)"  nice!


----------



## silkstone (Oct 17, 2014)

rtwjunkie said:


> Amazing stuff!  The thing about antibiotics is there is not anything wrong with them,. and if they had always been used properly, they would still be effective on all bacterial infections.  Too many people have stopped taking them when they "feel better," which of course they would if 80-90% of the bacteria causing them problems were killed off.  The 3 to 4 extra days of antibiotics is to make sure the last bacteria are killed too.
> 
> So, when the last few are allowed to survive, they learn a little about the drug, and build up some resistance.  Then it gets passed to someone else, where it "teaches" that person's bacterial infection they will undoubtedly will get one day.  Then they will do like over half the people do, and not take all their antibiotic schedule, because they too feel better at some point.
> 
> If all people always took all their prescription of antibiotics, the various bacteria would never get a chance to learn about it, because they would be killed every time.  It's sad that we have to rely on viruses, which as we know if THEY go amok, as they surely will, we're screwed, because very little kills viruses.



Not entirely accurate.

Te bacteria would still adapt, just not as quickly. Discontinuing treatment just allows more that have some form of antibiotic resistance to survive to multiply, passing on their resistance to future generations. 
Is't basically, hyper-evolution. Think survival of the fittest. The bacteria don't individually change or learn, we just allow more of the better adapted to survive.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Oct 17, 2014)

silkstone said:


> Not entirely accurate.
> 
> Te bacteria would still adapt, just not as quickly. Discontinuing treatment just allows more that have some form of antibiotic resistance to survive to multiply, passing on their resistance to future generations.
> Is't basically, hyper-evolution. Think survival of the fittest. The bacteria don't individually change or learn, we just allow more of the better adapted to survive.


 
Correct, I thought that's what i was saying.  The better ones adapt to the drug, a bit at a time, and get passed from person to person, repeating the cycle, until the drug no longer affects them.  You said it well: hyper-evolution...caused by humans.  Essentially, if you kill them all off in each host, there is no ability to adapt.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Oct 17, 2014)

Pitting Natures Assassins against Natures Janitors. What could possibly go wrong?


----------



## AphexDreamer (Oct 17, 2014)

Another messed up thing about antibiotics is that its essentially like nuking your body to rid it of bacteria. Its going to kill the bad bacteria but its also going to kill the good bacteria. So I recall reading that they want to create medicine that will target specific bacteria without harming the good guys.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Oct 17, 2014)

AphexDreamer said:


> Another messed up thing about antibiotics is that its essentially like nuking your body to rid it of bacteria. Its going to kill the bad bacteria but its also going to kill the good bacteria. So I recall reading that they want to create medicine that will target specific bacteria without harming the good guys.


From someone who survived a battle with MRSA I hope so. I never fully recovered because of the amount of antibiotics I had to take.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Oct 17, 2014)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Pitting Natures Assassins against Natures Janitors. What could possibly go wrong?


 
LOL, EXACTLY!!  That's my whole wth thought on their thinking in a nutshell!


----------



## AphexDreamer (Oct 17, 2014)

TheMailMan78 said:


> From someone who survived a battle with MRSA I hope so. I never fully recovered because of the amount of antibiotics I had to take.


I also read that marijuana is a great antibiotic against MRSA. While other antibotics are growing weak to them, pot they found is a potent antibiotic to fight just that strain.
https://www.google.com/search?q=Marijuaana MRSA&oq=Marijuaana MRSA&aqs=chrome..69i57.3244j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8#q=Marijuana MRSA&spell=1

But yeah I hope times change too. Are bodily bacteria aren't being naturally selected as quickly as the bad bacteria that endure it day to day. So while the bad are getting stronger are bodily bacteria are not.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Oct 17, 2014)

TheMailMan78 said:


> From someone who survived a battle with MRSA I hope so. I never fully recovered because of the amount of antibiotics I had to take.


 
Then this would indeed be something good.  Humankind, however, has never been too good at controlling what isn't really ours to control.  Chances of the various viruses being maintained within our defined parameters are almost zero over the long term.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Oct 17, 2014)

AphexDreamer said:


> I also read that marijuana is a great antibiotic against MRSA. While other antibotics are growing weak to them, pot they found is a potent antibiotic to fight just that strain.
> https://www.google.com/search?q=Marijuaana MRSA&oq=Marijuaana MRSA&aqs=chrome..69i57.3244j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8#q=Marijuana MRSA&spell=1
> 
> But yeah I hope times change too. Are bodily bacteria aren't being naturally selected as quickly as the bad bacteria that endure it day to day. So while the bad are getting stronger are bodily bacteria are not.


That's good to know honestly. Doctors said I wouldn't survive another run in. At least that will give me an excuse to start smoking again.

Stay out of strip club bathrooms. Its more sanitary to crap your pants.


----------



## 64K (Oct 17, 2014)

Tatty_One said:


> Hmmmmm, sounds interesting, although in context you could argue..... "OK, lets fight Botulism (Bacterial) with Ebola (Viral)"  nice!



Yeah, I guess you guys have a valid point. If the cure is worse then the disease then what's the point? Things can get out of hand screwing around with altering viruses too but it sounds like they are going to pursue it anyway.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Oct 17, 2014)

I AM LEGEND anyone?


----------



## buildzoid (Oct 17, 2014)

I actually thought this is the most logical step in medicine for some time now. Viruses are easy to modify and if they manage to modify them to be more stable(you do not one them to mutate over time like the cold/flu does) then you could end up with every human just taking a shot of a virus cocktail and never worry about a bacterial infections again. In theory you could design viruses to solve genetic disorders however that is probably a very long way of.
I also remember that there were attempts to use an anti bacterial virus in the past however it killed ALL bacteria that it came across so it ended up killing the people who took the treatment because they went from infected to completely bacteria free which caused all kinds of other health issues that killed them anyway.


----------



## LaytonJnr (Oct 17, 2014)

Basically we're taking a process that many viruses are already doing, which is hijacking bacterial cells to turn them into virus-producing factories, but picking and choosing which bacteria we want them to target. Because of some slight but important differences between bacterial and human cells, it shouldn't attack human cells. 

Except viruses can still mutate and start attacking human cells anyway. I'd be interested to see what probabilities they come up with for the risk of viral infection.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Oct 17, 2014)

Hence what i said above. A virus meant to fight cancer mutates and turns humans into cannabalistic vampires


----------



## theonedub (Oct 17, 2014)

buildzoid said:


> In theory you could design viruses to solve genetic disorders however that is probably a very long way of.



They've actually been doing this since the ~70s with varying degrees of success.


----------



## Tatty_One (Oct 17, 2014)

AphexDreamer said:


> I also read that marijuana is a great antibiotic against MRSA. While other antibotics are growing weak to them, pot they found is a potent antibiotic to fight just that strain.
> https://www.google.com/search?q=Marijuaana MRSA&oq=Marijuaana MRSA&aqs=chrome..69i57.3244j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8#q=Marijuana MRSA&spell=1
> 
> But yeah I hope times change too. Are bodily bacteria aren't being naturally selected as quickly as the bad bacteria that endure it day to day. So while the bad are getting stronger are bodily bacteria are not.


Honey is also natures antibiotic, drink one glass of warm water each day with a large teaspoon of melted honey and that will keep most of them nasties away.


----------



## Sasqui (Oct 17, 2014)

On a high level, the concept of a *Bacteriophage* is not very new.  Viruses attack virtually all living things, while some leave others untouched.  So, you have a virus that kills a bacteria, but not the host that the bacteria is attacking.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacteriophage

http://beckteria.wordpress.com/2013/03/18/bacteriophages/

This is an especially evil looking one 







"Since ancient times, reports of river waters having the ability to cure infectious diseases, such as leprosy, have been documented. In 1896, Ernest Hanbury Hankin reported that something in the waters of the Ganges and Yamuna rivers in India had marked antibacterial action against cholera and could pass through a very fine porcelain filter. In 1915, British bacteriologist Frederick Twort, superintendent of the Brown Institution of London, discovered a small agent that infected and killed bacteria. He believed the agent must be one of the following:

a stage in the life cycle of the bacteria;
an enzyme produced by the bacteria themselves; or
a virus that grew on and destroyed the bacteria.
Twort's work was interrupted by the onset of World War I and shortage of funding. Independently, French-Canadian microbiologist Félix d'Hérelle, working at the Pasteur Institute in Paris, announced on 3 September 1917, that he had discovered "an invisible, antagonistic microbe of the dysentery bacillus". For d’Hérelle, there was no question as to the nature of his discovery: "In a flash I had understood: what caused my clear spots was in fact an invisible microbe ... a virus parasitic on bacteria."[6] D'Hérelle called the virus a bacteriophage or bacteria-eater (from the Greek _phagein_ meaning to eat). He also recorded a dramatic account of a man suffering from dysentery who was restored to good health by the bacteriophages.[7] It was D'Herelle who conducted much research into bacteriophages and introduced the concept of phage therapy.[8]

In 1969, Max Delbrück, Alfred Hershey and Salvador Luria were awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine for their discoveries of the replication of viruses and their genetic structure.[9]"


----------



## twilyth (Oct 17, 2014)

There is some controversy over the cause of antibiotic resistance.  The conventional logic about it being necessary to take a full course of antibiotics may actually have the opposite effect - http://discovermagazine.com/2014/oct/8-stop-taking-antibiotics-when-you-feel-better.  For example


> Shorter antibiotic regimens, in contrast, intentionally allow some susceptible bacteria to survive in order to help suppress any resistant pathogens. A recent study showed just this: Mice infected with both drug-susceptible and drug-resistant malaria, when treated less aggressively, were 150 times less likely to pass on the resistant pathogens.


Also, the key to antibiotic resistance is the transfer of plasmids that are like free floating new genetic code that bacteria can transfer to one another - even among different types of bacteria.


> Scientists have uncovered a key factor to explain why antibiotic-resistant bacteria can thrive in a hospital setting.
> Tiny circles of DNA called plasmids appear to be the culprit. They can easily enter bacteria and move from one bacteria to another, and some carry a gene that makes bacteria drug-resistant, a new study finds.
> 
> "The plasmids we are talking about carry an antibiotic-resistant gene to a class of antibiotic called carbapenems," said the study's co-author, Dr. Tara Palmore, an infection control specialist at the U.S. National Institutes of Health.


Plus plasmids can replicate on their own.  So once you have any sort of bacteria with the genes to convey resistance, those can be easily transferred to any other bacteria they come in contact with.


----------



## Messy:'D (Oct 21, 2014)

Tatty_One said:


> Honey is also natures antibiotic, drink one glass of warm water each day with a large teaspoon of melted honey and that will keep most of them nasties away.


You like honey??? I find it too sweet tbh :L


----------



## Tatty_One (Oct 21, 2014)

Messy:'D said:


> You like honey??? I find it too sweet tbh :L


 Depends what honey you have, some are sweeter than others (ignore your supermarket garbage, different bees produce different levels of sweetness) and of course the warm water helps dilute that sweetness a little, but you are right of course, some use it as a sugar substitute after all.  If you live in the US though, and you like honey, chances are the product you buy isnt really honey in any case (although this does not only apply to the US), take a look at this short article, the only "pure" way to go in order to get all the goodness is the pure natural unrefined stuff, it costs but it does have all that anti viral, anti bacterial quality that most processed honey no longer has........

http://institutefornaturalhealing.com/2013/11/the-not-so-sweet-truth-about-honey/


----------



## Messy:'D (Oct 21, 2014)

Tatty_One said:


> Depends what honey you have, some are sweeter than others (ignore your supermarket garbage, different bees produce different levels of sweetness) and of course the warm water helps dilute that sweetness a little, but you are right of course, some use it as a sugar substitute after all.  If you live in the US though, and you like honey, chances are the product you buy isnt really honey in any case (although this does not only apply to the US), take a look at this short article, the only "pure" way to go in order to get all the goodness is the pure natural unrefined stuff, it costs but it does have all that anti viral, anti bacterial quality that most processed honey no longer has........
> 
> http://institutefornaturalhealing.com/2013/11/the-not-so-sweet-truth-about-honey/


I know this is OFT but is Newbury a city or a town.. And what city is Newbury in?


----------



## Tatty_One (Oct 21, 2014)

Messy:'D said:


> I know this is OFT but is Newbury a city or a town.. And what city is Newbury in?


 Sorry you cannot join this clubhouse, you clearly have less knowledge of the UK than TMM and he is a yank!


----------



## 64K (Oct 21, 2014)

Messy:'D said:


> I know this is OFT but is Newbury a city or a town.. And what city is Newbury in?



I'll help you out. It's in Berkshire which is in England.

https://maps.google.co.uk/maps/ms?f...975141075086.0004596fc51aaebdc2b33&dg=feature

Google is my friend.


----------



## Messy:'D (Oct 21, 2014)

Berkshires a city? Yay :'D


----------



## 64K (Oct 21, 2014)

Messy:'D said:


> Berkshires a city? Yay :'D



No Newbury is the city within the county Berkshire. For some reason my map link screwed up. Zoom out and you will be able to see.


----------



## Bo$$ (Oct 21, 2014)

use T7 phage spray like the russians used to do...


----------

