Biological Virus
-
One of the earliest and most ancient mode of existence which survived up to today.... Extinction has not seem like a possible thread for them in the near future to come...
Just what is the significance of their existence, and what kinda further impacts can they possibly bring humans in the future to come...? -
..../me flies in.....
-
../me flies out..
-
Originally posted by Xiao Long Nu:..../me flies in.....
-
/me fades in.............
*no 1 in*
/me fades out............ -
Well, I suppose it is fair to say that biological viruses has managed to survived till so far.Originally posted by Devil1976:One of the earliest and most ancient mode of existence which survived up to today.... Extinction has not seem like a possible thread for them in the near future to come...
Just what is the significance of their existence, and what kinda further impacts can they possibly bring humans in the future to come...?
However, to say that extinction is not a possible threat for them seemed to be over-rating them.
In a way, a parallel example would be something like the equating of mammals as a never-extincting specimen.
In specific, we could always have a scenario whereby in response to certain environmental shifts or changes, hundreds of existing similar viruses may have died, and leaving only one strain of virus from their common family to survive the ordeal.
This is a fact that we would probably get to determine in detail, but this is also a fact that we can never deny.
Given the simple and general knowledge available on viruses, it is common knowledge that unlike complex organisms which adapts to changes via evolution thru the behavioural aspect, viruses are relatively simple organic entites which rely primarily on genes mutations to survive environmental changes.
While the typical association by the normal layman with the term 'mutation' would often create the impression of a virus being stronger and tougher, this may not often be true.
In contrast, the mutation process would probably reseamble more to the occurence of cancer among humans.
Within the mass activity of mutation that goes on within a single viral strain, the ultimate form could have easily numbered thousands by the classification of new variants as they spring up in a horrifryingly fast and uncontrollable sequence.
Though uncontrollable, the process nevertheless does not neccessary mean that it would be uncontainable.
With respect to this property, a possible manipulation by Man on this organism may prehaps, be employed more within the zonal of biological research.
In particular, reseachers and scientists who specialize in genetic engineering would probably enjoy greater success as they use simple viruses as their core study to understand the complicating process of having multiple mutations occuring stimutaneously under a same set of environmental stress.
Malicious genes or other unstable elements of a stimulated virus could then be prehaps tagged, studied and preferably stabilized.
Upon attain the stabilation of easily mutable components in a virus' strain, the condition virus would thus reseamble a poisonous snake without its fangs.
One would be able to re-enginneer a 'stabilized' virus according to specifications (if technologically feasible) to achieve a reformed slave variant of an original renegade virus.
Dependent on the nature of re-enginneering, such new variants of slave viruses could be employed in vast and unimaginable ways.
One may employ them within the human body as an artificially layer of additional introduced immune system.
In industrial usage as catalysts for production purposes.
Or simply just for the simple reason of disarming them to prevent more harm to our species.
These are of course, only very limited and conventional possibilities.
In reality, a deeper understanding of the natural mutation cum evolution activities would possibly just hold the promise to discover and open up an entire new world and infinate possibilities for subsequent 'improvements' with lower rates of QC failure.
By then again of course, this picture potrays only the beautiful side of the story.
With the same knowledge and ambition of viral harvesting, one must also acknowledged that should a potentially harmless strain be enginneered by other renegade scientists for the wrong purpose, then mass hell will break loose.
Hence by the context of reality, there is no choice.
Since we have already discovered on the existence of such organisms, the quest to dominate and manipulate them can never end now.
It is, and will forever remain a vicious and bloody cycle.
Either we kill off their harm on us,
Or we let it kill us. -
Hehheh... Most interesting write up.... Before I start? Can I know if you're of any related academic studies background on the topic or you just got your knowledge somewhere somehow?
Well... I hope this topic interesting to you as much as it interest me?
Originally posted by Spear:
That actually brings me to another thought? Remember how the dinosaurs somehow just seems to have vanished from the surface of earth? Something happened... Let's say during that period mammals were all wiped out... (of course, I believe it didn't happened that way...) Then the cycle somehow 'repeated' itself, but in a different way..... Would mammals have been considered to face extinction but come back into existence again...? Hmm...
Well, I suppose it is fair to say that biological viruses has managed to survived till so far.
However, to say that extinction is not a possible threat for them seemed to be over-rating them.
In a way, a parallel example would be something like the equating of mammals as a never-extincting specimen.
In specific, we could always have a scenario whereby in response to certain environmental shifts or changes, hundreds of existing similar viruses may have died, and leaving only one strain of virus from their common family to survive the ordeal.[b]
Interesting enough to say, as compared to most other species... Other than the fact that they don't have behaviorial aspect as mentioned by you to come, they also have a VERY SIMPLE replication mechanism (no coupling required) and very good doubling rate usually (the way the population doubles...)... That seems to me that, UNLESS under a rather environmentally or artificially constrained system... Their growth rate can easily overwrite their host's.... Wipe out only seems only possible under very good measures or unless they're out of host...
[b]
This is a fact that we would probably get to determine in detail, but this is also a fact that we can never deny.
Given the simple and general knowledge available on viruses, it is common knowledge that unlike complex organisms which adapts to changes via evolution thru the behavioural aspect, viruses are relatively simple organic entites which rely primarily on genes mutations to survive environmental changes.
While the typical association by the normal layman with the term 'mutation' would often create the impression of a virus being stronger and tougher, this may not often be true.
In contrast, the mutation process would probably reseamble more to the occurence of cancer among humans.
This point really interest me... Does mutation process for viruses take on a totally 'random' process? Or is it somehow more specific? For it seems to me that mutation process of cancer among animals is more of an undesirable process that happens just like errors on the more variable genes and /or due to external stimuli eg. cancinogenic agents or radiations...? While virus is 'designed' in such a way that which they prefers to be more variable... (like their outer coat so that they are not so easily targetted by the 'immunity communitee'.....
Within the mass activity of mutation that goes on within a single viral strain, the ultimate form could have easily numbered thousands by the classification of new variants as they spring up in a horrifryingly fast and uncontrollable sequence.
Though uncontrollable, the process nevertheless does not neccessary mean that it would be uncontainable.
With respect to this property, a possible manipulation by Man on this organism may prehaps, be employed more within the zonal of biological research.
In particular, reseachers and scientists who specialize in genetic engineering would probably enjoy greater success as they use simple viruses as their core study to understand the complicating process of having multiple mutations occuring stimutaneously under a same set of environmental stress.
Malicious genes or other unstable elements of a stimulated virus could then be prehaps tagged, studied and preferably stabilized.
Upon attain the stabilation of easily mutable components in a virus' strain, the condition virus would thus reseamble a poisonous snake without its fangs.
One would be able to re-enginneer a 'stabilized' virus according to specifications (if technologically feasible) to achieve a reformed slave variant of an original renegade virus.
Dependent on the nature of re-enginneering, such new variants of slave viruses could be employed in vast and unimaginable ways.
One may employ them within the human body as an artificially layer of additional introduced immune system.
The last point is interesting... Employing virus as an artificially introduced layer of immuno defence system? Care to elaborate on that?
In industrial usage as catalysts for production purposes.
Or simply just for the simple reason of disarming them to prevent more harm to our species.
These are of course, only very limited and conventional possibilities.
In reality, a deeper understanding of the natural mutation cum evolution activities would possibly just hold the promise to discover and open up an entire new world and infinate possibilities for subsequent 'improvements' with lower rates of QC failure.
By then again of course, this picture potrays only the beautiful side of the story.
With the same knowledge and ambition of viral harvesting, one must also acknowledged that should a potentially harmless strain be enginneered by other renegade scientists for the wrong purpose, then mass hell will break loose.
Hence by the context of reality, there is no choice.
Since we have already discovered on the existence of such organisms, the quest to dominate and manipulate them can never end now.
It is, and will forever remain a vicious and bloody cycle.
Either we kill off their harm on us,
Or we let it kill us.
How about mutual existence? Like you've mentioned in your post, virus can have a vast range of applications too? -
Hi Devil.
In reply to your earlier question, well I hate to disappoint you but I'm afraid I'm not as 'biologically' inclined as compared to your field of academic training.
I'm trained in a non biological focus, but sometimes I just look around on the Net when I'm free.
Driven primarily by curiosity nia.
-
For the sake of clarifying clear first on the defination of virus, the readers may wish to have a look at this defination which I had picked up from the Internet.
The link is as follow :
http://www.tulane.edu/~dmsander/garryfavwebfaq.html
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Definition of a Virus:
Biological structure composed mainly of nucleic acid within a protein coat, ranging in size from 100 to 2000 angstroms (unit of length; 1 angstrom is equal to 10-10 meters); they can be seen only with an electron microscope. During the stage of their replication cycle when they are free and infectious, viruses do not carry out the usual functions of living cells, such as respiration and growth; however, when they enter a living plant, animal or bacterial cell, they make use of the host cell's chemical energy and protein- and nucleic acid-synthesizing ability to replicate themselves. Viral nucleic acids are single- or double-stranded and may be DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) or RNA (ribonucleic acid). After viral components are made by the infected host cell, virus particles are released; the host cell is often dissolved. Some viruses do not kill cells but transform them into a cancerous state; some cause illness and then seem to disappear, while remaining latent and later causing another, sometimes much more severe, form of disease. Viruses, known to cause cancer in animals, are suspected of causing cancer in humans. Viruses also cause measles, mumps, yellow fever, poliomyelitis, influenza and the common cold. Some viral infections can be treated with drugs.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Now interestingly there is also a certain paragraph in which, the editor of the webby actually answered a query on viruses.
According to the web master, by established standards, viruses are actually not considered to be alive.
Not that I'm pretty much convinced by him, but heck. He's the Phd, not me. -
With reference to my earlier post way up above in the page, I have suggested the possibilty of Mankind to engage genetic enginneering to 'reform' a virus, remove it's malicious genes that causes harm to humans, stablized it from mutating away from it's re-enginneered variant and eventually employ the virus organically thru artificial introduction into the human body.
To the majority, the idea may prehaps sound absurd, unethical, or even insane.
However unknown to the minds of many, do you know that in just decades back ago, Mankind was already employing such technics already?
Highlighting the focus onto the Polio disease, do you know that the vaccine for Polio was actually developed from the virus itself?
To understand what had happened back in the 1950's and 1960's whereby polio was a major devastation that ravaged the defendless population of Humanity, a good read could be derive from the following :
'Since the late 1950's and the early 1960's, there has been a controversy between which type of polio vaccine should be used. Jonas Salk had first discovered the polio vaccine which was injected into the blood stream. It consisted of dead polio viruses which the body makes antibodies from. He used a dead strain of a virus which was uncommon at the time. Albert Sabin later came up with another polio vaccine which was taken orally. It consisted of 'weakened' polio viruses.
The body attacks the weakened polio virus and grows immune to it. The weakened virus isn't strong enough to create a full blown polio infection, but strong enough for the body to create antibodies to it. Occasionally, the virus does become strong enough and the person gets a polio infection, especially with people who have weakened immune systems due to treatments of other illnesses. This doesn't happen with Salk's vaccine since the polio viruses injected are dead. But are these risks worth it? Which type of vaccine should be used?
Sabin's vaccine is now used 99% of the time in the U.S. over Salk's vaccine. Approximately 100 million Americans had taken three doses of the Sabin vaccine by the mid 1964. It has many advantages over the vaccine Salk came up with. It is taken orally and kept in the refrigerator until administration time. The vaccination doesn't require any uses of needles. It can be put in sugar cubes or sweetened syrup. Therefore, it was easy to administer and is used widely in third world countries such as Africa. On the other hand, Salk's vaccine needed to be administered with a needle, which can be unsanitary in third world countries where they can't afford to use one needle or each person. The Soviets found out that the Salk vaccine was complicated to administer. (It takes 3 shoots to complete the vaccination.) It was therefore never widely used there.
The vaccine is 96% to 100% effective in a field test in the former Soviet Union and Czechoslovakia of 12.6 million people. It immunizes the digestive tract instead of the blood, unlike Salk's polio vaccine. It is also known that 'gut' immunity is better than blood immunity. The vaccination lasts longer than the Salk's vaccine so it doesn't require multiple doses throughout your lifetime.
After taking the oral vaccine, you could excrete live polio virus from their feces. This could infect unvaccinated adults who, for example, change the diapers of a baby who took this vaccine. This could be an advantage because you could become immunized secondhandedly. Therefore, not only the baby will be immune to polio, but also the adults that were around.
One assumption to make refrigeration an advantage is that the cost of a refrigerator is much cheaper than the costs of needles in the long run. The problem with this is that refrigerators could be used for other vaccinations and medicines instead of storing polio vaccination. Another assumption with the refrigerator is that there is electricity to run the refrigerator. In certain parts of the world, there isn't enough electricity to run enough refrigerators to store all the vaccines and medicines, since refrigerators require a great deal of energy. This could pose a problem in some country's. But as technology moves and expands throughout the world, this problem won't be a big deal in the future.
Another assumption of why Sabin's vaccine should be used, especially in third world countries, is that the country has resources to handle people who do come down with polio. Sabin's vaccine can cause polio, even though the risks are very low. In the U.S., approximately 3/4 of all polio cases are related with vaccinations and contracting the disease through the vaccine.' -
In both Sabin and Salk's approach, the two gentlemen had obviously chosen to boost the human immune system via provocation with a weaken virus that operateswith less vigor and agression as compared to an 'unfanged' one.
While this approach has proven its' effectiveness, the versality of this methodology still has relatively great disadvantages which renders the style of treatment to remain an unviable option for treatment against many other diseases caused either directly or indirectly by viruses.
Firstly, as the recent SARS example had proved in conjuction with the grim reminder such as the Black Death episode in London around the time when the Big Ben was burntdown, we know that there are certain viruses that reproduce themselves too fast for the human immune system to adapt accordingly.
Secondly, the success of the treament in addition to the weaken status of the manipulated virus, the success of the treament was also partially attributed to the crutial factor that the original human immune system within the body of a subject is still in a relatively well functioning condition.
Now a problem would arise when we talk about the second issue.
What would happen then to a patient, who's original immune system was already malfuntioning or detolerating rapidly from the attack of another disease? -
Now in view of the above mentioned limitation...
Think.
What if the therapeutic process had been designed to revolved in an opposite manner by which the previous provocative approach was reversed instead?
Now if a strain of hyper-agressive but 'defanged' virus which had been earlier infused with re-enginneered and human reseambling DNA and RNA codings were to be available, the induction of the 'good' virus would instead, propel a patient who is formerly in poor health back into pink again with an even faster pace than other malicious but slower duplicating versions.
Of course, this is only one of the more traditional use of the viruses' existance.
But venturing more adventurously down this same path which seek to fully employs the natural strength of viruses to reduplicate their 'contents' into any available foreign cell, imagine what this spells for more dangerous areas of gray.
Say we employ a re-enginneered variant into combat soldiers, and this variant contained 'antidotes' that kill off other common viral disease such as malaria or other common jungle sicknesses, the mass vaccination of a country's entire army would have greatly increased and multiple crazily upon their on field fighting capabilities.
At best, such dreams are only still being dreamt more predominantly along the traditional streamline.
But upon the day where a crazy scientist can come up with even more earth shocking alternatives, only that would then mark the tue beginning of the Viral Revolution.
And when this day does dawn, prehaps civilization may finally have a chance at re-making them itself for the better.
Or then again, for the worst too prehaps? -
From what I know, it can be classified as both the living or the non-living....Originally posted by Spear:According to the web master, by established standards, viruses are actually not considered to be alive.
Not that I'm pretty much convinced by him, but heck. He's the Phd, not me. -
Sorry for the 'BOLD' I've left you in my reply... Didn't know what exactly went wrong with my formating...? ~Sigh....~
Anyway, I've already know about vaccines... But usage of vaccines though could be useful, it's limited in quite a way... Like if the 'virus' used for vaccination is not of close resemblance enough to the original virus you're suppose to fight off, it won't be effective as a 'training guide' for the body's immunity system... Also... If it's TOO CLOSE a resemblance... The risk might be too high? -
By ur mentioning of high risk degree, are u hinting at the potential for leukemia to arise as a subsequent complication?Originally posted by Devil1976:Sorry for the 'BOLD' I've left you in my reply... Didn't know what exactly went wrong with my formating...? ~Sigh....~
Anyway, I've already know about vaccines... But usage of vaccines though could be useful, it's limited in quite a way... Like if the 'virus' used for vaccination is not of close resemblance enough to the original virus you're suppose to fight off, it won't be effective as a 'training guide' for the body's immunity system... Also... If it's TOO CLOSE a resemblance... The risk might be too high? -
Oh... Usually vaccines are made in 2 ways? Or issit 3..? Can't really remember my school stuffs...Originally posted by Spear:By ur mentioning of high risk degree, are u hinting at the potential for leukemia to arise as a subsequent complication?
If I never remember wrongly...
1. Vaccines made from modification(s) of original virus (in deactivated form).
2. Vaccines made from broken virus and only selected parts.
3. Vaccines man-made either with parts attached to an appropriate artificial carrier or whole artificially (genetical?) vaccine.
High risk mentioned in my earlier post refers to the possible risk of true infection when vaccine is applied, especially so in case (1). That's why vaccines have to be tested. BOTH for efficiency and unwanted (side effects or disease effects) effects.....