Potential new treatment for autoimmune diseases?

[Zizzle]

This sounds interesting. I can't wait to learn more...

http://www.montana.edu/news/11954/msu-s ... e-diseases

BOZEMAN – Scientists at Montana State University have developed a therapeutic that has potential as a biological drug or probiotic food product to combat many of the more than 80 autoimmune disorders that affect some 23.5 million people in the United States.

A patent application is pending and the technology is available for licensing.

The bacterium used by MSU researchers to develop the new therapeutic is a common organism found in the human gut and could be administered as a probiotic food such as yogurt, as well as in a pill or nasal mist.

Because the therapeutic is engineered into a bacterium that qualifies under ­­­the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s Generally Regarded As Safe designation, it has the potential for low manufacturing costs.

The technology offers potential as a treatment for a wide range of autoimmune diseases, including common and potentially debilitating ailments such as rheumatoid arthritis, Type-1 diabetes, colitis and multiple sclerosis. It could also enhance existing autoimmune treatments.

While the bacterium acts to suppress a broad range of autoimmune responses, it does so without the need for a specific disease antigen to be engineered into compound so that a single therapeutic drug or probiotic could be developed to address multiple autoimmune diseases. Immune response to the therapeutic is low such that it can be administered repeatedly without the body reacting negatively to it.

Currently, MSU has 213 licenses from technologies developed by faculty and researchers. Of those, 85 licenses are with Montana companies.

What bacterium could it be???

[Deb]

Wow. This is exciting! Deb

[tex]

Zizzle,

But this is basically the way that BT GMO corn works, and I thought that you were opposed to that.

Tex

[Zizzle]

Zizzle,

But this is basically the way that BT GMO corn works, and I thought that you were opposed to that.

I'm not sure I see the connection to BT corn. They are not adding a GM organism to a food that's eaten in large quantities population-wide and which is covered in glyphosphate. This is a targeted therapeutic which will presumably be studied on humans for safety before it's released to patients with autoimmune diseases with their full awareness and consent.

[tex]

First off, glyphosate tolerance has nothing to do with BT (or any other bacteria) — that's a completely different genetic modification that's associated with a specific herbicide tolerance. The addition of BT traits specifically allows/empowers the corn plant to generate enzymes equivalent to those produced by B. thuringiensis bacteria (which are toxic to certain species of worms that feed on corn).

Using a specific bacterium as a biological drug, in order to provide a food product with the ability to modify the body's immune system response, is basically the same concept, except that it's disguised as a "probiotic", so it slips in under your radar.

How do you think that product will magically prevent all those autoimmune diseases? In order to have a global effect, it will have to perform similarly to helminth therapy. IOW, my guess is that it will promote an alternative immune system reaction against the particular bacterial pathogen that they have selected to use. The immune system response that it promotes will have to be dominant, in order to distract the immune system from the other reactions that it is designed to preempt. That infers that it will have to generate an alternative inflammatory response that the immune system perceives as more of a threat than the antigens that it is currently reacting to (with various concurrent autoimmune issues).

Is an inflammation source that the immune system perceives as a greater threat than any other current inflammatory event likely to be a safe choice for long-term health? Maybe — maybe not. Are individuals who have a lifetime infection with helminths (so that IBDs and other autoimmune-type issues are prevented) noted for their longevity?

That said, I will concede that such a product may well be safer to use for treating/preventing autoimmune-type issues than the many drugs that are currently being prescribed to alter the body's immune system response, because those surely diminish average longevity, also. The safest approach would be to research new and innovative ways to use diet to control so-called autoimmune diseases, because virtually all of the common autoimmune-type issues appear to be caused by external antigens, in conjunction with a weakened or otherwise compromised immune system (usually associated with a vitamin D deficiency), not by an overactive immune system. And therapies of the type proposed are usually designed to downregulate what the researchers incorrectly perceive as an overactive immune system.

Note that the claims behind this concept validate my long-time claim that all so-called autoimmune diseases have a common origin. If they didn't have a common origin, then no single product could be used to treat them all. The problem is that the medical community is still trying to promote the use of drugs, when the cause of the problem is dietary. It's the same old mantra — treat the symptoms, not the cause. But doctors don't want to be dietitians — they want to write drug prescriptions. Why? Because they have a monopoly on the ability to write drug prescriptions, and that guarantees them job security in the long run. By contrast, they don't have a monopoly on anything related to diet recommendations, so they're not even interested in learning more about it.

I don't have a problem with using drugs to help control symptoms of disease, but I do have a problem with drugs being used as the exclusive treatment. The primary treatment should be based on dietary changes, not on drugs.

Tex

[Gabes-Apg]

Further to Tex's statements

while ever the focus on using meds to fix the issue (not diet/lifestyle etc) no one will protect and look after the food industry.

All the research monies are going into medications, which we do not know the long term consequence for.

[tex]

Because the therapeutic is engineered into a bacterium that qualifies under ­­­the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s Generally Regarded As Safe designation, it has the potential for low manufacturing costs.

Incidentally, I forgot to mention that I got a good laugh out of that line. Does anyone here really believe that manufacturing cost has anything to do with the price of drugs these days.

Tex

[Gabes-Apg]

Does anyone here really believe that manufacturing cost has anything to do with the price of drugs these days

well tex it does,
as the profits will be higher with a low manufacturing cost, so in big pharma world that makes it a winner!!! (doesn't matter if it works or not, it just needs enough techo stuff for doctors to prescribe it and bingo! in comes the money)

[tex]

Sure, they make more profit if the cost of manufacturing is lower, but the cost of manufacture of at least 99 % of the drugs sold is insignificant, in comparison with the actual price to the consumer. Pills that cost a few cents to produce sell for 5 or 10 bucks apiece, or more. Sure, some of the money goes to development costs, but most of the money goes to promotion, and the sale price always includes enough markup to insure that even low-volume sales result in big profits. Big pharma tries to claim that the lion's share of the price goes to research and testing required for FDA approval, but that's only true if the market is very small. For popular drugs, most of the budget goes to advertising and promoting the drugs to convince doctors to prescribe them. And after a few years, if a drug is popular, all but a tiny fraction of the sale price is profit.

The only times that they lose any money, is when they get caught selling drugs that are so dangerous that they have to withdraw them from the market, and they usually sell enough before that happens, that they don't lose much, if any.

Tex