Alan.Holmes@brunel.ac.uk (Alan J Holmes) (08/03/89)
Can anyone answer a few questions about Aids? How did it start? There were some stories going around about monkeys somewhere, is there *REALLY* a connection? Why is it that this disease (for want of a better term) has only just come to the surface? After all, the currently accepted methods of transmission (sexual intercourse of one form or another) have been going on for centuries, for most of that time without the benifit of any protection at all. Why has Aids never appeared before? In what we call the 'Gutter Press' there has been the hint that it may have been a manufactured disease, probably developed in one of the many 'germ warfare' establishments. Is there any evidence that this was so? This is a genuine request for information, not to be confused with apportioning the blame on *ANY* section of society. Regards Alan Holmes Please feel free to either use e-mail or post your response, I am sure there must be many others who would like to know the answers.
Drew.Hamilton@p5.f180.n221.z1.fidonet.org (Drew Hamilton) (02/03/90)
I know nothing about AIDS, so I hope someone will have the patience to
answer my stupid questions that I am sure have easy answers tha everyone should
know about:
If AIDS is just a problem with the immune system, why can't we take T-Cells
(is that what they are called?) from a healthy person and give them to an AIDS
person to make them better?
Also, Can the immune system be taught to battle AIDS (just like chiken pox)
cause we could just develop an immunity shot to give a small dosage of AIDS to
the person.
Sorry if my questions are dumb, but I would like to kjnow the answer..
Drew Hamilton
This is a great BBS \/ \/ \/ \/ \/
--
Uucp: ...{gatech,ames,rutgers}!ncar!asuvax!stjhmc!221!180.5!Drew.Hamilton
Internet: Drew.Hamilton@p5.f180.n221.z1.fidonet.orgKen.Green@p5.f180.n221.z1.fidonet.org (Ken Green) (02/03/90)
-> DH> If AIDS is just a problem with the immune system, why
-> DH> can't we take T-Cells (is that what they are called?) from
-> DH> a healthy person and give them to an AIDS person to make
-> DH> them better?
well Drew, its because the HIV virus in the persons system, would simply
re-infect the newly injected healthy cells; with the early cases of Aids
babies they tried complete (total) blood transfusions, replacing the entire
infected blood with healthy blood, but unfortunately for the little ones,
this did not work, because the HIV virus also infects body tissues as well,
and finds its way back into the new fresh blood, and re-infects it. Thats
why they dont use organs from Aids patients for the organ donors program,
under normal circumstances anyway.
-> DH> Also, Can the immune system be taught to battle AIDS
-> DH> (just like chiken pox) cause we could just develop an
-> DH> immunity shot to give a small dosage of AIDS to the person.
well, perhaps some of the other posters can give you a more informed answer
on that question, i'll leave it to them. I hope they dont get too
technical, i myself would like to hear a nice simple explanation to that
one.
-> DH> Sorry if my questions are dumb, but I would like to kjnow
-> DH> the answer..
there is no such thing as a dumb question about Aids, except the
question(s) that go un-asked ! Speak your mind ! There seems to be a lot
of educated resource here, take advantage of it.
--
Uucp: ...{gatech,ames,rutgers}!ncar!asuvax!stjhmc!221!180.5!Ken.Green
Internet: Ken.Green@p5.f180.n221.z1.fidonet.orgbob@ozdaltx.UUCP (bob) (02/05/90)
In article <31500@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU>, Drew.Hamilton@p5.f180.n221.z1.fidonet.org (Drew Hamilton) writes: > > > Also, Can the immune system be taught to battle AIDS (just like chiken pox) > cause we could just develop an immunity shot to give a small dosage of AIDS to > the person. > The problem of creating a vaccine has a lot to do with the bodies' inability to mount a successful attack on HIV. In other words, the body does make antibodies to HIV, that is what is tested for when you "take the test", but apparently these antibodies are ultimately (if at ever) ineffective. So even a little of the live virus used as a vaccine might actually infect the person instead of conferring immunity. Ideas of using a killed virus to promote an antibody and immunity are being researched, there is still the question of being sure that the vaccine contained no live virus, and of course the question about whether or not the provoked response to the vaccine would actually protect someone. Not too long ago a researcher working with SIV (the monkey form of AIDS, Simian Immunodeficiency Virus) claimed early success in developing a vaccine for SIV. It was not a 100% success yet, but very promising and offers HOPE that a vaccine for HIV may be possible (it was not at all clear whether it would be possible to do this with any sort of AIDS like virus). It is not certain that the same thing can be done with HIV. It is worth noting that the chicken pox example and other vaccines differ in another critical way from HIV - they don't attack the immune system directly. And in some of these vaccinations we are looking at using a less serious disease to provoke immunity which also works against a more serious disease which is genetically close. So far there doesn't appear to be anything like that with AIDS. Someone else explained why complete blood transfusions wouldn't work, but it might be worth mentioning that adults on AZT often develop anemia as a side effect and receive transfusions, so it has been tried on that level as well, but not for those reasons. -- Bob Culmer - Dallas | "Hearts will never be practical until Somewhere over the rainbow | they can be made unbreakable." - Wizard ...in the Land of OZ | "But I still want one." - Tin Man {ames,rutgers,texsun,smu}!attctc!ozdaltx!bob
bevans@gauss.unm.edu (Mathemagician) (02/06/90)
In article <31500@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU> Drew.Hamilton@p5.f180.n221.z1.fidonet.org (Drew Hamilton) writes: > I know nothing about AIDS, so I hope someone will have the patience to >answer my stupid questions that I am sure have easy answers tha everyone >should know about: Don't worry. That's why this group exists. > If AIDS is just a problem with the immune system, why can't we take T-Cells >(is that what they are called?) from a healthy person and give them to an AIDS >person to make them better? The problem is the way the AIDS virus works. HIV attacks what are known as T_4 helper cells [T subscript 4] which are used to activate an immune response in a person. This causes a relative increase in the number of T_S cells which shut down an immune response (that is, stops antibodies from forming etc.) This means that a person infected with HIV cannot mount an immune response to infections and is the reason why many people die from opportunistic infections (infections that come on because the immune system is so suppressed) rather than from the virus itself. To put more T-cells in the system is just giving the HIV "food," per se. What is needed is to reduce the amount of HIV present. -- -- Brian Evans |"Momma told me to never kiss a girl on the first bevans at gauss.unm.edu | date...But that's OK...I don't kiss girls."
denbeste@spdcc.com (Steven Den Beste) (02/07/90)
In article <31537@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU> bob@ozdaltx.UUCP (bob) writes: >In article <31500@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU>, Drew.Hamilton@p5.f180.n221.z1.fidonet.org (Drew Hamilton) writes: >> >> >> Also, Can the immune system be taught to battle AIDS (just like chiken pox) >> cause we could just develop an immunity shot to give a small dosage of AIDS to >> the person. >> >It is worth noting that the chicken pox example and other vaccines >differ in another critical way from HIV - they don't attack the immune >system directly. And in some of these vaccinations we are looking at >using a less serious disease to provoke immunity which also works >against a more serious disease which is genetically close. So far >there doesn't appear to be anything like that with AIDS. > The only theoretical basis for a perfectly safe AIDS vaccine appears to require genetic information. The immune system antibody response is not to the genetic information within HIV, but rather to the shell encasing that genetic information. If you can reproduce the proteins (?? sugars?) alone, and inject those into someone, there is no chance that they will get AIDS. Nonetheless, their immune system would go through a recognition/battle response, and thenceforth there would be a residual level of anti-HIV antibodies in their blood. (They'd react as being positive thereafter on the HIV tests available now, which is ironic if they turn out to be immune! How are the insurance companies going to tell the difference between HIV-infected (positive test response) people that they don't want to insure, and HIV-vaccinated (positive test result) people that they really DO want to insure?) Hopefully, what would then occur takes advantage of the relatively high proportion of antibodies within a unit volume of blood as opposed to the number of T4 cells. The virus has no active propulsion system, but relies solely on turbulence to bring it into contact with T4 cells, which it then invades. If there are a million times as many anti-HIV antibodies as T4 cells then the virus is much more likely to touch one of THEM (and stick, deactivating the virus) first. At least, that is the hope. The problem with all this reasoning is that the initial HIV infection appears to cause a quite reasonable anti-body response, so after the first invasion the HIV being re-released into the blood from T4 cells should be getting deactivated immediately. In other words, they should be getting well. They don't, however. I think that there are two reasons that research in this area is continuing: 1. Possibly if there are already antibodies in place when the initial invasion occurs it can be controlled. It may sort of be like stopping a forest fire when it is 1 foot across by throwing a bucket of water on it, instead of waiting until it consumes half the state of Wyoming before you begin fighting. 2. The other reason is desperation. If this doesn't work, then there doesn't appear to be any other way to prevent the disease at the current state of the art. So even though this kind of vaccine doesn't look promising, it's the only game in town. So work continues.
ned@h-three.UUCP (ned) (02/28/90)
In article <31997@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU>, jay@banzai.PCC.COM (Jay Schuster) writes: > Disclaimer -- my medical information is about a year or two old. > > Drew.Hamilton@p5.f180.n221.z1.fidonet.org (Drew Hamilton) writes: > > If AIDS is just a problem with the immune system, why can't we take > > T-Cells (is that what they are called?) from a healthy person and > > give them to an AIDS person to make them better? > > Aside from the reason(s) already mentioned, each person's immune > system is tailored to work in *their* body. Your immune system > will fight off foreign cells. Your neighbor's will fight off all > foreign cells. If you put your neighbor's cells in your body, they > would try to fight off your body's cells. > Well, would it be possible to clone non-infected, activated AIDS fighting T-cells in the lab, and then inject the patient with so many of them that the AIDS virus is destroyed? For example... 1) Extract healthy T-cells from high-risk individuals and store them in culture. 2) When an individual becomes infected, expose part of the individual's stored T-cells to the infecting strain of the AIDS virus. 3) Select activated but non-infected T-cells from the exposed culture and clone a bunch of them using interleukin II. 4) Inject the individual with so many of the cloned T-cells that the AIDS virus is destroyed before it has a chance to infect the clones. -- Ned Robie uunet!h-three!ned
denbeste@spdcc.com (Steven Den Beste) (03/02/90)
In article <32362@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU> ned@h-three.UUCP (ned) writes: > >Well, would it be possible to clone non-infected, activated AIDS fighting >T-cells in the lab, and then inject the patient with so many of them that >the AIDS virus is destroyed? For example... > >1) Extract healthy T-cells from high-risk individuals and store them in culture. > >2) When an individual becomes infected, expose part of the individual's stored > T-cells to the infecting strain of the AIDS virus. > >3) Select activated but non-infected T-cells from the exposed culture and > clone a bunch of them using interleukin II. > >4) Inject the individual with so many of the cloned T-cells that the AIDS > virus is destroyed before it has a chance to infect the clones. > Consider the lesson of Herpes Simplex. It has the capability of crossing the blood-brain barrier and hiding in ganglia near the base of the spine. Every once in a while, for reasons we don't understand, it comes boiling out into the blood, and the person has a flareup of the disease. The immune system begins fighting the virus - and wins! It destroys all the virus in the blood, but doesn't affect that reservoir in the nerves, so months or years later, out comes another invasion. That's why Herpes Simplex (or any other kind of Herpes, for that matter) is for life. HIV unquestionably crosses the blood-brain barrier - that's how it causes "AIDS-related dimentia". Even if you could eradicate all the virus in the blood, you'd have virus in nerve tissue, and you'd have infected T4 cells, both waiting to reintroduce the virus into the blood.
Drew.Hamilton@f213.n221.z1.fidonet.org (Drew Hamilton) (08/19/90)
This is probably a dumb question, but i know hardly anything about AIDS so any
info woulkd be helpful. Since AIDS people die of infections, not of AIDS
itself, would ti possible for an AIDS person to live as long as a non-aids
person if he was locked up in a sterile room and was fed sterile food, etc?
Thanks,
drew
--
Uucp: ...{gatech,ames,rutgers}!ncar!asuvax!stjhmc!221!213!Drew.Hamilton
Internet: Drew.Hamilton@f213.n221.z1.fidonet.orgWgb.*@f19.n104.z1.fidonet.org (Wgb *) (08/25/90)
Is the incidence of AIDS any greater in the Scandanavian countries among
causcasian males than it is in the USA? I've heard that it was and need to
confirm it. Thanks.
SEEN-BY:
--
Uucp: ...{gatech,ames,rutgers}!ncar!asuvax!stjhmc!104!19!Wgb.*
Internet: Wgb.*@f19.n104.z1.fidonet.orgrwright@gatech.edu (Ronald K. Wright) (08/29/90)
Drew.Hamilton@f213.n221.z1.fidonet.org (Drew Hamilton) writes: >This is probably a dumb question, but i know hardly anything about AIDS so any >info woulkd be helpful. Since AIDS people die of infections, not of AIDS >itself, Actually, this is not entirely true, although seemingly everyone believes it. We are seeing an increasing number of deaths from HIV encephal(itis|opathy) and that is due directly to the virus. >would it be possible for an AIDS person to live as long as a non-aids >person if he was locked up in a sterile room and was fed sterile food, etc? Nice plan but... The lymphomas, tumours of the B cell lymphocytes, are also becoming increasingly prevelant, probably because of the lack of infections killing people sooner. Also, although Kaposis Sarcoma of the skin seems less prevelant of late, Kaposis Sarcoma of lung and lypmh node is more common and will also kill eventually. The bottom line is that with improved care we see less deaths directly attributable to infections and more from the disease or from tumours which are caused by the disease. -- R. K. Wright MD JD | office: uunet!medex2!medexam!rkw Chief Medical Examiner, Broward County | nova: novavax!rwright Associate Professor Pathology | home: uunet!medex2!love1!rkw University of Miami School of Medicine | fax: 305 765 5193
Wounded.Bird@f38.n135.z1.fidonet.org (Wounded Bird) (09/04/90)
Do you, or anyone else on this echo, know if there are tests for Kaposis
Sarcoma or lymphomas which are not visible or readily apparent from skin
lesions? Must one wait for severe symptoms and a biopsy? Does it matter to
treat it early when dealing with attacks against internal organs?
SEEN-BY:
--
Uucp: ...{gatech,ames,rutgers}!ncar!asuvax!stjhmc!135!38!Wounded.Bird
Internet: Wounded.Bird@f38.n135.z1.fidonet.orgSf.Mom@p0.f475.n10.z1.fidonet.org (Sf Mom) (10/21/90)
Are there any others online in a situation similar to mine? I'm a
middle-of-the -road, middle-class, middle aged married woma and an I'm married
to a wonderful man I love dearly. He's sensitive, gentle, bright, generous ,
creative, the best companion of my life, and he's HIV+. He picked the virus up
at the baths, probably almost a decade ago, and now he's beginning to have
some symtoms and is on AZT. Aside from our docs, nobody knows, just as nobody
else in our circle of family and freinds knowns about his bisexuality. Our
kids don't know. we're scared to tell anyone, not only because of potential
problems with insurance and job discrimination, but also because we wonder
just how liberal, enlightened and accepting our freinds will be. We've tiptoed
into a few services and support activities oriented for the gay men with HIV
but those don't really feel like the place for either of us. I guess so many
gay people with AIDS have suffered so much discrimination from the straight
community they feel wary of us, or something. And anyway, my husband gets
anxious that if he gets too visible with his HIV status, he'll lose his job
and insurance, an occurance that seems to have happened to far too many
others with HIV infection.
SO, we feel very lonely. We practice safe sex. We buy black-market azt so it
never shows up on the insurance forms. We behave like enlightened liberals and
have been praised for our financial and emotional support of AIDS charities
and service groups. But inside, for each of us, it's so frightening. I will
lose the love of my life. Probably in not too many years. Our kids, who are
all in the throes of adolescence and are sorting out their ownj sexual
identities, will have to come to terms with their father's having a terminal
sexually transmitted disease. The up side of all of this is that we do live
every day to the fullest. We cherish every flower in the garden, every
skyscape-filled sunset, and morning cuddle more than imaginable.
But I just wonder if there is anyone else in similar situations. I wonder
--given the high percentage of married men who have had gay sexual
experiences--if there are other families dealing with this problem also--and
also feeling scared and isolated.
The church community is NOT the place for us. We come from the same religious
roots that spawned ``the society of blind optometrists,'' as a local newspaper
columnist dubbed the U.S. COnference of Bishops, following their anti-condom
stance. I am sure that if we went to our parish priest, he'd tell me to quit
having safe sex with my beloved spouse of 25 years because condoms frustrate
the natural purpose of sex, etc. etc.
--
Uucp: ...{gatech,ames,rutgers}!ncar!asuvax!stjhmc!10!475.0!Sf.Mom
Internet: Sf.Mom@p0.f475.n10.z1.fidonet.org