Smallpox Vaccine Could Prevent AIDS 95
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."
GMU Alum (Score:1)
Re:Synonym for AIDS: Gay Flu (Score:2)
Excellent News (Score:4, Funny)
Study the recently vaccinated. (Score:4, Interesting)
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)
Re:Study the recently vaccinated. (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Study the recently vaccinated. (Score:3, Insightful)
You test them all now. Also test a large group of healthcare workers that were not vaccinated.
In five years, you test them all again.
Compare the deltas.
No, it's not the most conclusive peice of evidence ever, but it'd be very very interesting.
Re:Study the recently vaccinated. (Score:2)
My example was healthcare workers, but it doesn't matter. You can compare withing the group of people, even if their behavior is anomolous. You just have to attempt to ensure that the two groups you are using (regular subjects and control subjects) have somewhat similar behavior.
Re:Study the recently vaccinated. (Score:1)
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)
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)
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.
Re:Study the recently vaccinated. (Score:1)
Re:Study the recently vaccinated. (Score:2)
Hope (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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
Re:Hope (Score:2)
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)
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
Re:Hope (Score:1)
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
Re:Bah (Score:2)
dr. duesburg has impressive credentials, but he's making an assumption that correlation implies a cause and effect relationship when this is not true. if you can show results in peer reviewed journals like nature, science, etc. that support his conclusions, then i'd be much more inclined to believe you; unfortunately, right now, he's one voice saying "no" in a choir singing "yes".
Re:Bah (Score:2)
Re:Bah (Score:1, Troll)
Every single "HIV+" patient that has opted for treatment has died or is dying. Every. Single. One.
It's more than a theory, it's just plain fact.
Now, plots and conspiracy theories, well, bah. Right now it's more that those responsible for the biggest scientific fuck up in history would be sued int
Re:Bah (Score:2)
Interesting theory, but I'm curious how it explains the concurrent explosion of AIDS cases in Africa, where they certainly don't have a lot of AZT being handed out.
Re:Bah (Score:2)
Any of 30 diseases - HIV = Any of 30 diseases
Any of 30 diseases + HIV = AIDS
So, in Africa, they are looking for "any of 30 diseases," assuming HIV, and calling it AIDS. Then "treating" them to death. It's a whole other sham over there.
In short: there is no AIDS crisis in Africa. People are dying of everyday di
Re:Bah (Score:1)
What about the deaths before treaqtment? Where those all people using poppers?
Perhaps AZT is more deadly then HIV. That does not mean the HIV does not cause problems, just that it is less toxic then AZT.
AIDS isn't just any number of diseases it is a state where your immube system stops functioning properly. It is being susceptible to deseases that should be easily faught off. It is not every day deseases, it is rare form
Re:Bah (Score:2)
It wasn't. It was predominate in the gay community. period. All through out and apparently without preference.
It wasn't until it moved over to hetrosexual and/or drug users that you saw the change in profile.
Re:Bah (Score:1)
Was treatment with AZT shifting from prodominently gay to prodominently black?
Was the use of nitrates fallowing that shift?
Re:Bah (Score:2)
And this is all explained in one paper by Duesberg: Can Epidemiology Determine Whether Drugs or HIV Cause AIDS? [virusmyth.net] (which was published in a peer-reviewed journal)
Re:Bah (Score:2)
Enjoy. [virusmyth.net]
(The journal each article was in is at the top of each article's page.)
Re:Bah (Score:2)
Back in 1981, I worked at CDC/Ft. Collins. We were busy doing our thing, but watching this new disease taking off. In fact, my boss was the first person asked to research it (turned it down due to politics). This was long before AZT ( a common compound).
I would like to see the evidence about AZT leading to death, while lack thereof living, and the medical community still pushing the drug.
Re:Bah (Score:2)
But, then, here's the article I've been looking for all day. This has more than enough information that a specific example is not needed: The AIDS Dilemma [virusmyth.net].
Re:Bah (Score:2)
BTW, part of the reason why I got out of genetics was the crap logic that I saw going on. Many ppl were willing to ignore facts and/or logic that destroyed their case. The biology world does it routinely. However, I saw more than enough evidence to accept that most likely HIV =
Re:Bah (Score:1)
Re:Bah (Score:2)
If it spreads like a virus and divides li
Re:Bah (Score:2)
HIV is the name given to a very real, and very harmless retrovirus. It does multiply and spread, but it spreads with a 50% chance from mother to child and a one in a thousand chance via sex. That's a retrovirus for you.
AIDS is not spreading like a virus. In fact, it's spreading with the the same rate that, oddly, the drug AZT is being spread. And it's spreading one to three years behind the prescription.
There are books upon books by Duesberg an
Re:Bah (Score:1)
He has turned into the troll of the HIV world simply because his ego will not allow him to back down from an initial hypothesis that has long ago been abandoned in the face of research and clinical experience.
It's his choice to sit on the sidelines with the conspiracy theorists. If his research was shown to have any shred of value you can bet he'd have all the funding and all the media atttention he fee
Duesberg's lecture (Score:2)
I know that every crackpot thinks they are Galileo fighting the Inquisition, but there are times when science initially gets things plain wrong. This family of diseases related to Mad Cow Disease was for a long time attributed to "slow
Re:Duesberg's lecture (Score:2)
They improve.
Rhere is something scientifically strange about HIV/AIDS that it doesn't fit patterns of other viral illnesses.
Of course, there is: it's a retrovirus that infects parts of the immune system and mutates rapidly. And there are lots of things about HIV and AIDS that are not understood at all. There may be co-fac
Anti-retrovirals and improvement (Score:2)
At the other end, you have statin (cholesterol-lowering drug) therapy for heart attack patients. You give them the
Re:Anti-retrovirals and improvement (Score:2)
That controversy isn't "emerging", it has been there since the beginning. The reason is that each anti-HIV drug only works for a limited amount of time because resistant forms of the virus start appearing within a person's bloodstream. So, if you give the drugs early while the immune system is still capable of copi
Re:Anti-retrovirals and improvement (Score:1)
I have known people with AIDS who eschewed AZT for macrobiotics or acupuncture - and most of them are now dead. Duesberg is not the defense attorney all the cops are mad at, he's the defence attorney who pisses everyone off by turn
Re:Duesberg's lecture (Score:2)
Really? Name someone doing "nothing at all" for an "HIV" infection who is worse for it? One. Just one. Any studies? Anything that's something other than you talking out of your ass?
I have one. The late tennis pro Arthur Ashe. He started the path to turning from AZT [blancmange.net] but never did. His wife and child both had HIV, but never received treatment. They live today, happy, healthy, and HIV+. Arthur Ashe remained on "treatm
Re:Duesberg's lecture (Score:2)
Plenty of studies. Here is the NIH fact sheet [nih.gov] with numerous references.
I have one. The late tennis pro Arthur Ashe. He started the path to turning from AZT but never did. His wife and child both had HIV, but never received treatment.
They can't have "had" HIV--it's a persistent infection--it stays around for life. And, yes, many people live with HIV for a decade or longer before showing
Re:Duesberg's lecture (Score:2)
The first argument there is false. The very first one. AIDS fails Koch's postulates with wild abandon now, as it did in 1980-1984. HIV was simply not found in the blood of people with AIDS in that time frame. It failed it then and still does.
It's found in the blood of people with AIDS today because they are being treated for HIV. The treatment is the cause. AZT kills. Everyone knows this, and no one has ever said otherwise. Th
Re:Duesberg's lecture (Score:2)
Re:Duesberg's lecture (Score:2)
Lets assume that it is harmless. Would you (or Duesberg) be willing to inject it to see? I think not.
Re:Duesberg's lecture (Score:2)
So, yes.
Dose of Common Sense Prevents All STDs (Score:1, Informative)
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)
You are so on the wrong site.
Re:Dose of Common Sense Prevents All STDs (Score:1)
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.
Re:Dose of Common Sense Prevents All STDs (Score:2)
Re:Dose of Common Sense Prevents All STDs (Score:2)
Re:Dose of Common Sense Prevents All STDs (Score:1)
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
Re:Dose of Common Sense Prevents All STDs (Score:2)
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
Re:Dose of Common Sense Prevents All STDs (Score:2)
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]
-
Re:Dose of Common Sense Prevents All STDs (Score:1)
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
Re:Dose of Common Sense Prevents All STDs (Score:2)
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
Re:Dose of Common Sense Prevents All STDs (Score:2)
What "creator"? You mean my parents? No, my wife and I are not married with our parents, you fucking intolerant reactionary christian zealot.
Re:Dose of Common Sense Prevents All STDs (Score:2)
Re:Dose of Common Sense Prevents All STDs (Score:2)
Re:Dose of Common Sense Prevents All STDs (Score:2)
Re:Dose of Common Sense Prevents All STDs (Score:2)
Re:Dose of Common Sense Prevents All STDs (Score:2)
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.
Re:Dose of Common Sense Prevents All STDs (Score:1)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re:fucking patents (Score:1, Insightful)
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.
Re:fucking patents (Score:2)
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
It's a discovery, not an invention (Score:2)
think a bit (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:HIV+AIDS=Biggest Hoax of 20th century (Score:3, Informative)
If it's a hoax, they've pulled the wool pretty well. Not only the population, but every medical journal too.
Re:HIV+AIDS=Biggest Hoax of 20th century (Score:2)
Duesberg follows another mishap like this (yes! It's happened before!) in Japan where an anti-diarrheal drug was causing, yep, diarrhea! Thirty years later they figured it out. Why? They were looking for a viral cause and not a chemical one. They kept prescribing the drug to people with the symptoms and scratched their heads as they got worse and died. AIDS and AZT p
Re:HIV+AIDS=Biggest Hoax of 20th century (Score:2)
You link to reviews of TC Fry's book. And what do the reviews say? That western medicine / modern medicine are all "quacks". That doctors and medical industries have been in a conspiracy with the "news media" for a hundred and fifty years to "fool everyone with their 'germ theory' and 'virus theory'". Anyone who disputes that bacteria and viruses cause infection and disease is a fruitloop.
The author of the book, TC Fry was nothing but a diet quack. His pet diet claims
HIV-Smallpox Interplay =~ Asthma-Measles Interplay (Score:2, Informative)
This observation bears an uncanny resemblance to the observation that eliminating various childhood diseases causes a person to later become susceptible to other illnesses.
Hard to determine what is just noise (Score:1)
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
eek! (Score:1)
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
Re:eek! (Score:2)
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.
Re:eek! (Score:2)
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
Great, but.... (Score:2)
Then again, it's not like most readers of Slashdot here are inclined toward illicit sex.