Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science

Smallpox Vaccine Could Prevent AIDS 95

Posted by michael from the not-to-mention-smallpox dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Researchers at George Mason University have published a preliminary report which suggests that the Smallpox vaccine might be able to slow the spread of AIDS. Various news stories have suggested that it may be due to the vaccine interacting with the CCR5 receptor, which is a cellular infection route in another related poxvirus, and also commented on the rise of AIDS in the years after smallpox was declared eradicated and the smallpox vaccine was no longer given as a matter of course."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Smallpox Vaccine Could Prevent AIDS More

Smallpox Vaccine Could Prevent AIDS

Comments Filter:
  • I didn't know we had a research department.

  • Excellent News (Score:4, Funny)

    by kurosawdust ( 654754 ) on Friday October 03, 2003 @04:01PM (#7127246)
    This development has the potential to offer hundreds of thousands of slashdotters a world of new opportunities for Not Getting Laid.

  • Study the recently vaccinated. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Futurepower(R) ( 558542 ) on Friday October 03, 2003 @04:02PM (#7127263) Homepage

    Recently those in the U.S. military were vaccinated against smallpox. It seems easy to track whether they have a lower incidence of AIDS infection.

    • Re:Study the recently vaccinated. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by IshanCaspian ( 625325 ) on Friday October 03, 2003 @04:08PM (#7127335) Homepage
      Yes, but the sexual behavior of the US military is hardly indicative of the larger population.

      • Re:Study the recently vaccinated. (Score:4, Insightful)

        by crow ( 16139 ) on Friday October 03, 2003 @04:12PM (#7127370) Homepage Journal
        While your point is valid, the military should have excellent records as to cases of AIDS among its personnel. So while they wouldn't be able to compare against the general population, they could compare against the expected number based on military statistics.

        Of course, troop behaviour changes depending on deployment, so it may still be impossible to generate statistically-significant results.

        On the other hand, there is also the population of health care workers who were vaccinated. Study them.
      • That doesnt matter. This isnt a social study, we don't need to know squat about the population's sexual behaviour.

        All we need to do is compare the placebo group's HIV rate to the vaccine group's HIV rate. Assuming both groups are drawn from the same larger population, in this case the Military.

        Most often the vaccine candidates are tested on higher risk populations.

        www.hvtn.org for more information on efforts to find a HIV vaccine. My old employer.

    • All military vaccinated. No serious side-effects. (Score:4, Informative)

      by Futurepower(R) ( 558542 ) on Friday October 03, 2003 @04:23PM (#7127481) Homepage

      Addition to my parent post: This article on a U.S. military web site implies that ALL U.S. military personnel are vaccinated against smallpox: Smallpox Research Project Data Presented [defenselink.mil]

      Apparently they were doing what I suggested in my parent post, although the research report doesn't say that: GMU, GW in Patent, Ethics Dispute [washingtonpost.com]. The Washington Post article is badly reported, because it doesn't mention the scientific basis for believing smallpox vaccine could stop AIDS.

      • Re:All military vaccinated. No serious side-effect (Score:4, Informative)

        by thinmac ( 98095 ) on Friday October 03, 2003 @08:17PM (#7129447) Homepage
        Well, not *all* U.S. military personnel get the smallpox vaccine. How do I know? I'm one of the ones who hasn't recieved it yet.

        The official line is that people get the vaccine if they are deployed in an area in which smallpox is "endemic". I put quotes around it because obviously it's not endemic to anywhere anymore, but the general wisdom is that that means anywhere they're likely to drop it on us.

        So, if you're in Iraq you get it, obviously. If you're in San Diego and are unlikely to get deployed elsewhere any time soon, you don't. I'm not sure about places like Germany or Japan, where there are large U.S. installations but not a huge risk of biological attack.

        A lot of people are getting it, though. The study you suggest would almost certainly be worthwhile.
    • Yes, the military vaccinated its troops, and then sent most of em to the desert. They dont send people that are already effected with HIV on deployments, and we aint bangen the locals, so of course the risk goes down. Now we have to monitor the numbers after we all get back and unleashed back on the general popluace.
    • US army cannot get HIV/AIDS, because nobody loves them.

  • Hope (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 03, 2003 @04:29PM (#7127556)

    I just hope that people don't use this announcement, and others like it, to convince theirselves that it's a-okay to go out there and bleep people without protection. I remember reading recently a story, I believe it was in the New York Times but I might be mistaken, that more and more youths (teenagers to those in their upper 20s), feel that AIDS and other STDs are under enough control that they no longer need to use preventive measures.

    I've seen two people I cared about very much die due to AIDS over the years. It's a horrible and painful way to go, both for the person infected and for the family and friends involved. If a risk only involves you, that's one thing. But the risk of AIDS involves you, your partner(s), and those who care and love you.

    • Re:Hope (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Molina the Bofh ( 99621 )
      I see three main reasons for youngsters to make sex without protection:

      It's so much more pleasurable. Whoever says it's not is either cynical or haven't been laid.

      People who have HIV usually takes about 10 years totally normal till they develop AIDS. With already available medication, they can live for an indefinite time more. In 10 years, medications are expected to be much better and have fewer collateral effects. Specially considering that in 10-15 years genetic therapy will probably already be availa

      • One thing that you don't consider is unknown risks of unknown diseases.

        One of the main reasons for the sexual revolution of the late 60's early 70's was the development of the pill (elimination of one of the biggest problems associated with sexual promiscuity). With most STD's treatable, if not curable, people let loose.

        It wasn't until the 80's that people realized that maybe all that promiscuity wasn't such a good idea. No one else can say with any certainty that another STD epidemic won't show up after

      • Re:Hope (Score:3, Insightful)

        by penguin7of9 ( 697383 )
        With already available medication, they can live for an indefinite time more.

        That's a dangerous myth. Yes, some people are long term survivors. Yes, medication has helped some. But HIV/AIDS is still a disease that greatly shortens life expectancy. And the treatments are often disfiguring and have serious side-effects. And then there is just the hassle and expense of it all.

        In 10 years, medications are expected to be much better and have fewer collateral effects. Specially considering that in 10-15
      • I am in the 'youngster' age group I would suppose (16-24) ? And the main problem I see is when going off to college, or 'growing up' people expect nothing less, so having sex unprotected is a risk still, but people don't really think much of it.
        Perhaps if people could foresee what everyone in the age group had been diagnosed with in the next 15 to 20 years, they would think twice, but the vast majority only live in the now.
        Personally my way of thinking is, don't get "caught up in the moment", and especi
  • Various news stories have ... also commented on the rise of AIDS in the years after smallpox ... was no longer given as a matter of course."

    That's possibly a factor causing the rise of AIDS, but I don't think we need to look so hard for clues. The simple fact is that an increase in risky behavior causes an increase in the number of infections. The institutions in our society that promote risky behavior are among the major culprits of the spread of HIV.

    We have witnessed the rise of AIDS during the years

    • Re:Dose of Common Sense Prevents All STDs (Score:4, Funny)

      by ahknight ( 128958 ) * on Friday October 03, 2003 @05:27PM (#7128062)
      You just need some principle and discipline.

      You are so on the wrong site.

    • Re:Dose of Common Sense Prevents All STDs (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward
      The solution to AIDS is overrated? That's funny (but tragic).

      Look at the facts. 100% of people who adhere to the view stated above do not get AIDS (besides the rare contraction through blood transfusion). Only people who refute it do get AIDS. Ignore my post at your own risk.

    • and a dose of common sense would tell you that this is the most phenominally impractical solution to a problem since prohibition was suggested in the 1910's. of course, i may be a bit biased, what with letting some form of logic and realism enter into my thought processes...
      • I would appreciate it if you would devote more diligence to understanding what I wrote before you try to evaluate its rightness or wrongness.

        I didn't say anything about the government (or anybody) imposing prohibition on any action. I'm talking about individuals choosing abstinence, which is neither illogical nor impractical. True, people have to want to live that lifestyle. It may appear impractical on a large scale today only because the entertainment media and the public education system are working to

        • I would appreciate it if you would devote more diligence to understanding what I wrote before you try to evaluate its rightness or wrongness. all due diligence was devoted. did i say you were wrong? no. i said you were naive and the solution you proposed is incredibly impractical because it makes assumptions about human behaviour which are patently false. you are correct in that not having sex means that you will most likely not contract an std. except... wait... herpes can be contracted orally (ever wonde

        • If everybody would pair up with one sexual partner for life, the problem would be solved.

          And don't forget to outlaw divorce while you're at it.

          The entire problem only exists because of the "sex and marrige for love" nonsense. Marriges should be arranged by the parents before the age of six. Women should be obedient to their men, expecially when captured in war, like the Bible teaches. Those who suffer from aids are justly suffering God's Wrath for their sins.

          [/sarcasm]

          -
    • Your theory only supports the americas and other places heavily influenced by american media.

      What about africa? I'm sure people abroad have their own culture and what TEEN BEAT has to say about the filty mcnasty has little effect i'm sure on the starving in ethiopia.

      Abstenence is the CURRENT method of prevention. Promisuity was not the cause. Just because we started showing a little skin doesn't cause these hidden viruses to jump out at us.

      If you've been doing any other reading besides the ethical and re
      • Your theory only supports the americas and other places heavily influenced by american media.

        American media penetrates most of the world. You can get Fox and CNN in the Middle East. American movies are popular the world over. Let me give you a clue. Iraq has several movie theaters. There is no big name movie studio in the Arab world. Besides, I said within the American "sphere of influence." That includes United Nations programs and probably a lot of other things I can't think of right now.

        What about af

    • Marriage is a covenant between one man and one woman and their Creator.

      What "creator"? You mean my parents? No, my wife and I are not married with our parents, you fucking intolerant reactionary christian zealot.
    • And while here at it, how about we just kill anyone who has different views.

      Dumb ass.

      What about children that get aids, we should just let them die bcause of someone elses behaviour?
      what about people who get aids from a cheating spouse?
      How about people who get aids because some dumb ass used a needle twice?

      I guess you believe the crusades where a good thing, because if they weren't sinners, we wouldn't have had to kill them.

      • What is all this ranting for? I'm talking about individuals making choices.

        The first two incidents you listed would never happen if people chose to follow the advice in my post. Addressing the first: Whether as a forcible perpetrator, consensual partaker, or needle stabber, man or woman, somebody would have had to engage in risky behavior for a baby to be born with AIDS. (Yes, wiping out AIDS this way will require a few generations' time.) Even if the mother had been born with AIDS, the fact is, eventuall

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re:fucking patents (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      You did not work for it.

      It came from the hard work of scientists.

      If tomorrow, you get saved, they know they dont get anything but a thank you. You can't eat a "thank you", you know?

      Okay? understood my point? they have every right to get money for the work done.

    • first off, you're incredibly naive if you believe that george mason is the only university that does this (if you don't believe me, check here [mit.edu] for mit's take). every university, (but particularly places like george mason which is a young school with 28,000 odd students between the arlington, fairfax, and manassas campuses) needs sources of revenue. and guess what, that's what intellectual property generates: revenue. it's not like the money is going to some nameless, faceless corporation. in this case, it's

    • If these guys, or any other guys, had developed some incredibly complicated nonobvious process to make an anti-HIV drug, I would say that they were entitled to a patent, and riches. Since they just figured that an existing thing does the trick...eh...not worthy of monopoly status, maybe good for a Major Award [leglamp.com] though.

    • think a bit (Score:3, Insightful)

      by boarder ( 41071 )
      Have you ever considered that maybe they patented it so that some large corporation COULDN'T? This could be a goodwill patent, similar to releasing code under the GPL (nobody can horde it completely for themselves).

      Also, if I make or discover something that completely changes the world and makes it an amazingly better place, you better fscking believe I'm going to patent it and make money. I would release it to the world at a fair price (i.e. not marking it up 1000% like most drug companies), but make so
  • The fascinating quote is below.

    Based on the natural history or spread of HIV in Africa, Weinstein and Alibek proposed that declining immunological responses to smallpox -- due to the elimination of the disease and the discontinuation of immunizations -- may have been associated with the emergence of HIV.

    This observation bears an uncanny resemblance to the observation that eliminating various childhood diseases causes a person to later become susceptible to other illnesses.

    • the incidence of asthma rose sharply after the elimination of measles, for example.

      The incidence of spinal injuries in car accidents in the UK went up after the introduction of airbags - but the number of fatal head injuries went down by about the same amount. Similarly there are so many factors influencing asthma that it is hard to work out what is an influence and what is noise. Something is going to get us all in the end - as other health problems get fixed cancers late in life kill proportiately more



  • patenting something like this is outrageous.
    medical practice is full of situations where one drug proves useful for diseases other than that it wasn't designed for. Viagra for example was initially a cardiovascular drug that just happened to have the side effect of inducing erections, so it was remarketed for that. Aspirin was a painkiller that was discovered to thin the blood and prevent heart attacks so the majority of seniors take it now. Gee, there are endless examples... Chlorpromazine was a sedativ
    • patenting is not a problem, how they chose to use it is.
      I have no problem with a company patenting something resulting from there work. As soon as they start charging unreasonable rates, or using it to pressure controls, then I say screw 'em.
      I have found that is how most people think as well.
    • In the US, if one company patents a compound, say Aspirin, they must say what it's good for. Let's say it helps headaches. Another company is allowed to patent the same compound if they can come up with a use for it - say curing cancer.

      Since doing all the toxicity studies has already been done, drug companies are interested in coming up with new uses for old stuff. Therefore, they have an incentive for trying to figure out new uses for stuff.

      Incentives are what patents are all about.

      That doesn't mea

  • Frankly, the best prevention of HIV is not screwing around and putting yourself in danger of contracting. You know, like doing drugs via shared needles, illicit sex, or anything like that.

    Then again, it's not like most readers of Slashdot here are inclined toward illicit sex.

Slashdot Top Deals

Crazee Edeee, his prices are INSANE!!!

Close