Pathogenesis

[smartguy]

---

Members don't see this ad.

How in-depth do medical faculty go into this area? I'm particularly interested in virology and it's evolutionary basis.

 

[njbmd]

How in-depth do medical faculty go into this area? I'm particularly interested in virology and it's evolutionary basis.

This topic is treated in depth in a graduate level virology class as opposed to a medical school class. Most of the virology that is taught in medical school, is taught from the standpoint of using it as a tool to treat patients clinically. If you are looking for more theoretical treatment of a subject, you are better off taking a graduate microbiology course.

Of course, there is nothing that prevents you as a medical student from doing your own in depth research on any subject of interest to you. Medical school does not limit your study but encourages it. Your medical school coursework is a license to learn and a base from which you may build your knowledge base in any manner that you have the interest or time to do. In medicine, only a very small fraction of your knowledge is going to come from listening to a lecture.

 

[smartguy]

Niiice, well you answered my question. I still have a couple years left in my current program before I decide on a set path to take (MD; MS; and/or PhD).

Added: CCLCM seems like a good fit (MD/MS).

 

[TMP-SMX]

Yeah I took Virology in undergrad that was a grad level course. It was interesting at times but most of the time it wasn't. It was mainly the form of replication and molecular biology.

Evolution? I'm not sure exactly what you mean. Are you talking about the RNA world?

 

[smartguy]

Revised: Endogenous retroviruses, when it comes to replication, definitely have a role in the RNA [arena], as well as the DNA that carries the "modification;" that is why we are either immune to or more susceptible to certain diseases. This is where I was headed ghostfoot.

Edit: Let me clarify this...I'm not talking about creationism. I am talking about a molecular basis for the evolution of viruses which, in the case of endogenous retroviruses, seem to contribute to human evolution. Any questions?

 

[ghostfoot]

It definitely has a role in the RNA world

I see that you use the word "definitely" very loosely, being that the whole "RNA world" concept was a desperate explanation at best.

Do you realize that "RNA world" was abandoned by its originators for the "transpermia" theory? Yes. That's the theory that assumes intelligent extraterrestrials introduced life to earth.

"RNA world" is so obviously bogus that it was replaced by the idea that aliens sent life to earth.

[EDIT]

 

[smartguy]

Edit: You both are reading too much into the semantics. I think I have myself to blame for not being too clear.

Added: Next time, I recommend doing a search in the Annals of Science before making a hasty judgement or insult ghostfoot. The area you are suggesting isn't a place for a clinician in the slightest. What draws me to the subject is the potential for its use in gene therapy. Imagine what we can do if we modify the genes of viruses to inactive states or re-arrange them to prevent infection from other diseases. The study is really thought provoking.

 

[smartguy]

Anyways, I have no interest in how life came to Earth; it's the mechanism that set the wheels in motion for living organisms that gets me. I need a drink.

 

[MadameLULU]

Hey guys, this is just a reminder to keep it civil. 🙂

 

[wisconsindoctor]

Edit: You both are reading too much into the semantics. I think I have myself to blame for not being too clear.

Added: Next time, I recommend doing a search in the Annals of Science before making a hasty judgement or insult ghostfoot. The area you are suggesting isn't a place for a clinician in the slightest. What draws me to the subject is the potential for its use in gene therapy. Imagine what we can do if we modify the genes of viruses to inactive states or re-arrange them to prevent infection from other diseases. The study is really thought provoking.

You have so much to learn my dear. What you posted on bold is exactly what the hype was in the 80's and 90's with gene therapy. Sure some gene therapy treatments have been able to cure the cancer they have targeted, but in all of those cases the patient ends up getting a different type of cancer and sometimes even die.

Using viruses to inject DNA into a cell is the main way gene therapy is done, but it's not safe. The recent stem cell breakthrough in stem cell research involved using a virus to add 4 new genes into an adult skin cell to change the behavior of the cell to act like an embryonic stem cell. But these so called geniouses used a gene that is known to cause cancer. So that right there is a double glow to their technique. No FDA approval will come from the recent stem cell breakthrough.

Good luck getting funding to do gene therapy research. Only a select few researchers are able to get the funding to do this type of research.

Growing organs in a lab to use for organ transplant sounds like a great way to do away with the shortage of organs needed for transplants. But guess what, there are so many problems that can arise that it makes it very difficult to accomplish. This is the same with gene therapy.

I would never have one of my patients go through a gene therapy treatment unless they are on their death bed.