I also can't get past the paywall, but the virus in question is seemingly causally related to developing MS. If the data holds up (who knows) it seems like it would imply the latent infection is not only triggering but sustaining MS.
That's what I was wondering. But if there is a latent infection and the immune system knows it (by attacking the myelin), then shouldn't the body already be creating those antibodies?
The New Scientist article is behind a paywall, but this BBC article from 14 April discusses the connection between Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) and multiple sclerosis. (Note: the article does not mention the study in the New Scientist.)
> Studies published this year have convincingly pointed the finger at the Epstein-Barr virus.
> "It is very, very strong evidence that this virus is likely to be the cause of multiple sclerosis," Prof Gavin Giovannoni, from Queen Mary University of London...
> The crucial piece of evidence has come from the US military, which takes blood samples from soldiers every two years. These are kept in the freezers of the Department of Defense Serum Repository and have proven to be a goldmine for research.
> A team at Harvard University went looking through samples from 10 million people to establish the connection between Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) and multiple sclerosis.
Systematic biomedical science like this is not done enough. Governments should be funding large-scale studies with extensive tests taken at regular intervals.
Presumably soldiers have the same concerns, they're just not presented with the opportunity to refuse. (Or perhaps it's simply opt-out rather than opt-in?)
As for myself, I perceive this is a collective action problem compounded by privacy concerns that (IMO) aren't in reality significant enough to outweigh the social benefits of participating in data sharing and trials. So I've been happy to give consent to 23&Me, Kaiser Medical, etc, to collect and use my genetic data. I see it as a civic duty, and an easy one at that, at a time when civic participation is unconscionably low. People seem to think civic participation is supposed to be zero-cost, but it never was. I also realize that the benefits of the data collected so far by 23&Me and Kaiser have been arguably meager, and 23&Me in particular has a rather controversial business model, but excessive hand-wringing over which organization is most "worthy" of my data only adds to the transactional costs of obtaining and using the data.
I don't recognize the legitimacy of that concern. It's a two-way street and ultimately a wash on a personal level. If you demand that I seek permission I've now also lost bodily autonomy, while at the same time unfathomably increasing the cost of any sort of genetic research. It's a recipe for scientific and medical paralysis where everybody will almost surely lose.
I view it much like abortion. Does a fetus have any recognizable interests? Perhaps. But nature makes it impracticable to give both mother and fetus bodily autonomy unless society changes the balance of power. While many societies will choose to limit abortion, I frankly find it extremely unlikely that any will choose to give relatives--even close relatives--a veto power over another's genetic disclosure. At a societal level the costs are clear and the resolution of the dilemma of incidental genetic disclosure becomes a non-issue. Rather, IMO the concern about relatives is just a rationalization for doing nothing while entertaining excessive anti-corporate, anti-capitalist, anti-government paranoia. Moreover, if someone can provide any concrete negative externalities (i.e. beyond the freedom to be paranoid and indignant), societies can address them in particular, much like they did by prohibiting exploitation of genetic data for health insurance, employment, etc.
Is there some expectation this will work better than the covid vaccine? Is "preventing severe infection" enough or would it actually need to prevent or cure infection?
People talk about the mRNA vaccines as some new tool, but they didn't really work for covid, is there some reason it was especially tricky and they will do better elsewhere?
First of all, the mRNA Covid vaccines have proved highly effective, compared to influenza vaccines, for example. They're probably the most effective vaccines ever developed for any respiratory virus.
Secondly, EBV is a herpes family virus, which as a DNA virus is about as far removed from an RNA virus like SARS-CoV-2 as it's possible to get on the virus family tree. There's no reason to expect that the efficacy of a particular vaccine technology on one would have any relation whatsoever to that of the other!
I appreciate we’re drifting off thread here, but I’d not heard the “most effective vaccines ever developed for any respiratory virus” claim before. I’m likely about to end up in some research rabbit hole this afternoon, but if you happen to have references to support that claim it would be much appreciated.
How do cures propagate? For example, is there a database of "best treatments for disease x"? How much time does it take for treatments to become widely available?
Physicians have a certain amount of Continuing Medical Education required each year to maintain their state certification. At these CME conferences, patient cases, novel treatments, etc are presented to the audience.
There’s also plenty of marketing done to physicians by pharma and medical devices.
EBV is an insidious virus. In addition to growing evidence that it's associated with MS, it's also associated with chronic fatigue syndrome and other sets of symptoms without a definitive, widely-accepted root cause, and even some cancers. If you ever had mononucleosis, you've likely still got EBV in your system. I had lymphoma and it might have caused that. It's particularly insidious in that it's common, spreads easily, and if it really is causing all these other problems, you might not know for decades, if ever.
Who is the author of the study? This New Scientist article paywall is terrible. At least with academic papers, you’ll have access to the abstract even if the rest of the article is paywalled. Here, there’s zero information besides the headline. Not even any hint if the study is new or not nor who did the study
Holy shit. That's awesome news. It aligns pretty well with recent evidence (showing Epstein-Barr virus being extremely prevalent in MS patietns) and seems to target the disease in exactly the right spot. It looks like a similar treatment as the one people were using for covid. I wonder if patients would need to wait for the end of the trials (probably taking more than 2 years) or if they may start getting it now.
27 comments
[ 7.7 ms ] story [ 74.8 ms ] threadI mean, there is …one …way
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-10719181/Multiple...
I think this is the original study?
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-04432-7
> Studies published this year have convincingly pointed the finger at the Epstein-Barr virus.
> "It is very, very strong evidence that this virus is likely to be the cause of multiple sclerosis," Prof Gavin Giovannoni, from Queen Mary University of London...
> The crucial piece of evidence has come from the US military, which takes blood samples from soldiers every two years. These are kept in the freezers of the Department of Defense Serum Repository and have proven to be a goldmine for research.
> A team at Harvard University went looking through samples from 10 million people to establish the connection between Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) and multiple sclerosis.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-61042598
As for myself, I perceive this is a collective action problem compounded by privacy concerns that (IMO) aren't in reality significant enough to outweigh the social benefits of participating in data sharing and trials. So I've been happy to give consent to 23&Me, Kaiser Medical, etc, to collect and use my genetic data. I see it as a civic duty, and an easy one at that, at a time when civic participation is unconscionably low. People seem to think civic participation is supposed to be zero-cost, but it never was. I also realize that the benefits of the data collected so far by 23&Me and Kaiser have been arguably meager, and 23&Me in particular has a rather controversial business model, but excessive hand-wringing over which organization is most "worthy" of my data only adds to the transactional costs of obtaining and using the data.
How did you choose to make the compromise between your individual choices and the privacy of your relatives?
I view it much like abortion. Does a fetus have any recognizable interests? Perhaps. But nature makes it impracticable to give both mother and fetus bodily autonomy unless society changes the balance of power. While many societies will choose to limit abortion, I frankly find it extremely unlikely that any will choose to give relatives--even close relatives--a veto power over another's genetic disclosure. At a societal level the costs are clear and the resolution of the dilemma of incidental genetic disclosure becomes a non-issue. Rather, IMO the concern about relatives is just a rationalization for doing nothing while entertaining excessive anti-corporate, anti-capitalist, anti-government paranoia. Moreover, if someone can provide any concrete negative externalities (i.e. beyond the freedom to be paranoid and indignant), societies can address them in particular, much like they did by prohibiting exploitation of genetic data for health insurance, employment, etc.
https://d1io3yog0oux5.cloudfront.net/_d9ae571e8ab35abbf8204c...
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20211013005398/en/Ata...
https://www.umassmed.edu/news/news-archives/2022/01/phase-i-...
People talk about the mRNA vaccines as some new tool, but they didn't really work for covid, is there some reason it was especially tricky and they will do better elsewhere?
Secondly, EBV is a herpes family virus, which as a DNA virus is about as far removed from an RNA virus like SARS-CoV-2 as it's possible to get on the virus family tree. There's no reason to expect that the efficacy of a particular vaccine technology on one would have any relation whatsoever to that of the other!
There’s also plenty of marketing done to physicians by pharma and medical devices.
Conferences, journals, peer review, workshops, etc.