From: Peter B. on

"john" <nospam(a)bt.com> wrote in message
news:iKmdnawXVa1_v27WnZ2dnUVZ7tSdnZ2d(a)bt.com...
>
> "D. C. Sessions" <dcs(a)lumbercartel.com> wrote in message
> news:cbfbc7-71o.ln1(a)news.lumbercartel.com...
>> Apparently, smallpox may have been good for
>> something after all: it may have given some
>> partial immunity to AIDS
>>
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8686750.stm
>
> Such a load of bollocks
>
> "Experts say the vaccine used to wipe out smallpox offered some protection
> against the Aids virus and, now it is no longer used, HIV has flourished."
>
> Smallpox vaccine was implicated in introducing AIDS
> http://whale.to/vaccines/aids1.htm
>
>>
>> Well, OK, the vaccine seems to be of some use
>> against HIV/AIDS. But it's not too large a
>> stretch to conclude that smallpox might have
>> had the same effect.
>>
>
> personally I think HIV is a fabrication, at the least completely harmless
> http://whale.to/Drewhole.html
>

You are one sick puke. If you really believe that then run a physical test
on yourself. Swap needles with an AIDS person or take it naturally. Make
sure you have at least 10 such encounters and then let us all know of the
results on a year by year basis. Please?


From: dr_jeff on
D. C. Sessions wrote:
> Apparently, smallpox may have been good for
> something after all: it may have given some
> partial immunity to AIDS
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8686750.stm
>
> Well, OK, the vaccine seems to be of some use
> against HIV/AIDS. But it's not too large a
> stretch to conclude that smallpox might have
> had the same effect.

The study also showed some long-term changes in the levels of some
cytokines. I was a bit surprised by this, because people are normally
exposed to so many different antigens, that I wouldn't expect this to
happen. This also raises issues about the long-term effects of the
vaccines, particularly with regard to autoimmune diseases and other
infections.

Of course, this is a lot to base on one study of just 20 subjects.

jeff
From: dr_jeff on
trigonometry1972(a)gmail.com | wrote:
> On May 18, 3:01 pm, "D. C. Sessions" <d...(a)lumbercartel.com> wrote:
>> Apparently, smallpox may have been good for
>> something after all: it may have given some
>> partial immunity to AIDS
>>
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8686750.stm
>>
>> Well, OK, the vaccine seems to be of some use
>> against HIV/AIDS. But it's not too large a
>> stretch to conclude that smallpox might have
>> had the same effect.
>>
>> --
>> | The brighter the stupid burns, the more |
>> | chance that someone will see the light. |
>> +- D. C. Sessions <d...(a)lumbercartel.com> -+
>
> Well its a hypothesis anyway. It may have been
> just a matter of timing unrelated to smallpox
> vaccination.

Well, it is not "just a hypothesis." The authors of the study have data
to back up their claims. Not much data, however.

> A smallpox vaccination is contraindicated in persons
> with a HIV infection.

So what?

> Perhaps smallpox should be reintroduced as a test
> of the hypothesis? Does being scarred from a smallpox
> infection reduce the frequency of sexual contacts?

Irrelevent. This was an effect on the cytokines and the white blood cells.

> Does a wave of small pox in the population alter the
> forms of untreated leprosy/hansen's disease in
> the afflicted? Would the infection tend to sweep out
> the HIV infected from the living population?
>
> The last one sounds pretty likely so what do you think, folks?
>
>
> TrIg

I think the study raises some interesting questions about vaccines and
the immune system. It hardly answers any of them. I think the study
should be repeated, with a lot more people (there were only 20 between
the control and experimental groups).

Jeff
From: dr_jeff on
john wrote:
> "D. C. Sessions" <dcs(a)lumbercartel.com> wrote in message
> news:cbfbc7-71o.ln1(a)news.lumbercartel.com...
>> Apparently, smallpox may have been good for
>> something after all: it may have given some
>> partial immunity to AIDS
>>
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8686750.stm
>
> Such a load of bollocks
>
> "Experts say the vaccine used to wipe out smallpox offered some protection
> against the Aids virus and, now it is no longer used, HIV has flourished."

That is not a quote from the experts. That is a quote from the
journalists. Note that the word "Aids" is wrong. It should be all CAPS,
"AIDS."

The authors of the study are very careful not to make sweeping
statements like the one the journalists made. They basically said that
this is an interesting finding that may help scientists develop a better
vaccine and better understand how to slow or stop the spread of the virus.

> Smallpox vaccine was implicated in introducing AIDS
> http://whale.to/vaccines/aids1.htm
>
>> Well, OK, the vaccine seems to be of some use
>> against HIV/AIDS. But it's not too large a
>> stretch to conclude that smallpox might have
>> had the same effect.
>>
>
> personally I think HIV is a fabrication, at the least completely harmless
> http://whale.to/aids.html
>
> while the drugs and aids umbrella diagnosis are the real cause

Personally, I am glad that what you think doesn't matter, because you
have demonstrated a complete lack of scientific understanding, including
any valid concepts in science, biology, medicine or immunology. So I
think what you think doesn't matter.

Jeff
From: dr_jeff on
trigonometry1972(a)gmail.com | wrote:
> On May 18, 3:01 pm, "D. C. Sessions" <d...(a)lumbercartel.com> wrote:
>> Apparently, smallpox may have been good for
>> something after all: it may have given some
>> partial immunity to AIDS
>>
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8686750.stm
>>
>> Well, OK, the vaccine seems to be of some use
>> against HIV/AIDS. But it's not too large a
>> stretch to conclude that smallpox might have
>> had the same effect.
>>
>> --
>> | The brighter the stupid burns, the more |
>> | chance that someone will see the light. |
>> +- D. C. Sessions <d...(a)lumbercartel.com> -+
>
> Perhaps the smallpox didn't suppress the spread
> of HIV by improving immune response by rather
> by speeding the downhill slide of the disease's
> progression to AIDs and death. Thus perhaps
> the vaccine may have been sweeping the infected
> out of the population.

If you look at the timing of the emergence of the virus and the spread
of the smallpox vaccine, I doubt you would come to this conclusion.

> Anyway the hypothesis that the vaccine held
> a benefit may just be a product of chance and/or
> confluent social changes in the region were the
> virus was endemic prior to the 70's. Some in
> some regions it was already well-established by the
> mid-70's as I recall.

And the people who would have been spreading the virus in the mid-70s
were vaccinated against smallpox, just as I was (I was just a slightly
later generation and did get vaccinated).

> Perhaps the pox virus can be reintroduced?
> Then we'd get to see if a pox scarred person
> has few lovers? Perhaps it would
> support your hypothesis that having the pox
> reduces the transmission of the HIV. And then
> experts might sort out the mechanism, whether it was by
> a deadly synergism or by a secondary benefit
> of a deadly disease?
>
> Wasn't there a proposal in the past to use a recombinate
> smallpox vaccine virus to vaccinate for other diseases?
> So perhaps such a thing might permit an ethical
> test of the primary hypothesis we are musing on.
>
> Nor should we assume the vaccine operation were fully
> risk free in the past. It is possible some instruments were
> reused such that a rising epidemic got spread even more rapidly
> in areas of bad practice. Certainly HIV was spread later
> by the treatment of malaria anemia by way of blood transfusions
> in backwater African clinics that lacked sufficient meds but
> had used transfusion needles, tubes, and bags. They would
> just grab a relative do a simple cross match and transfuse.
> What could go wrong? :-( This happened to thousands
> of kids in Africa.
>
> Timing, timing.......................Trig

This wasn't the main way AIDS was spread. The main way AIDS was spread
in Africa was by heterosexual behavior.

There are a ton of interesting questions that are generated by the
study. So far, they are just interesting questions.

I think the study's main contribution is to raise the questions.

Jeff