HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer)
Subject: Re: rifabutin
Note: Copyright 1992, Dan R. Greening. Non-commercial reproduction allowed.
Archive-Number: 6754
Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting, Cambridge MA
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 02:02:10 GMT

In article <1993Jan12.185342.744@cs.ucla.edu> crichmon@sedona.intel.com (Chris Richmond) writes:
>Not really related to AIDS, but what is meant by :
>
> "Is it immunosuppressive, like Septra and other antibiotics? "

Good question; it doesn't mean much, and it's certainly an imprecise
use of the word immunosuppressive.  Trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole (Septra)
can be rather poorly tolerated in people with AIDS compared with people
who don't have AIDS, but few people would call them immunosuppressive.
And you certainly can't call "other antibiotics", whatever that phrase
means, immunosuppressive.

>I have three kids with Cystic Fibrosis that are on Septra, Bactrim, generic
>version of same, all the time.  Is this immunosuppression documented in
>a place I can find it?  Cystic Fibrosis is a genetic diease that causes
>lung and digestive (enzyme) problems.  CF people seem to have the same
>kind of problems with oppertunistic (sp) infections that PWA do.

I think if you ignore that comment, you'll be well served.

-- 
Steve Dyer
dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer
Newsgroups: sci.med.aids
From: Billi Goldberg <bigoldberg@igc.apc.org>
Subject: Re: fleas as vector for AIDS?
Note: Copyright 1992, Dan R. Greening. Non-commercial reproduction allowed.
Archive-Number: 6724
Organization: unspecified
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 93 09:13:53 PST

I am posting this message as requested by Phillippe Stas at 
philstas@vub.ac.be

**********************************************************************
Subject: Re: fleas as vector for AIDS?
Newsgroups: sci.med.aids
Keywords: n
Summary: luck in science?
<1993Jan5.150210.17185@cs.ucla.edu>

In article <1993Jan5.150210.17185@cs.ucla.edu>, markn@comm.mot.com (Mark 
Nowak) writes:

> could somehow be induced in humans to wipe out HIV.  I get the 
>impression AIDS researchers don't really know a whole lot about how 
>life really works.  I mean it was only in this century that researchers 
>stumbled onto antibiotics.  Scary that luck has so much to do with it.
> -- 
> Mark Nowak                 | By means of the easy and the simple we
> Motorola, Inc.             | grasp the laws of the whole world.  When
> Chicago, Illinoi           | the laws of the whole world are grasped> 
INTERNET: markn@ssd.comm.mot.com    | therein lies perfection. - I Ching

Indeed Mark,

Science is a way of having luck. One searches for a lot of things to 
find a fact every one or two years. But, as I have to point out, ONLY A 
PREPARED MIND FINDS THE THIINGS BY LUCK.Most findings come sudden and 
most of the times from an unexpected experimental result. One has always 
to consider that you can find something your not looking for. If you 
just go on with what you were actually doing, without knowing side 
fields, you can miss the most important.

What on the point of AIDS? We've been lucky the disease did not come 10 
years earlier. The existance of Human Retrovirusses was only proven in
the early eighties (late seventies). The virus has been studied now,
using the technology of monoclonal antibodies, a technique from 1983-84.

Immagine the effect of AIDS without these tools, lots of people dying 
and seropositive without knowing why.

Johor

"If Man is five, Then the devil is six"
"And if the devil is six, Then GOD is seven"
"This monkey is going to heaven"
-------------------------------------------------------------
-  Phillippe Stas                                           -
-  philstas@vub.ac.be                                       -
-  Dept. of Cellular Immunology                             -
-  Free University of Brussels          tel: 32-2-359.03.58 -
-  Paardenstraat 65                     Fax: 32-2-359.03.90 -
-  B1640 St.Genesius Rode             Modem: 32-2-359.03.59 -
-  Belgium, Europe                           (2400,1,N,8,1) -
-------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: sci.med.aids
From: uretsky@mcclb0.med.nyu.edu
Subject: Re: tat inhibitor stuff in recent ATN
Note: Copyright 1992, Dan R. Greening. Non-commercial reproduction allowed.
Archive-Number: 6752
Organization: NYU Medical Center, New York, NY 10016, USA
Date: 12 Jan 93 13:44:15 EST

At one time, it was possible to mount a srtudy fairly quickly, because there
were no other treatments to compare any drug alongside of.  It is simple ethics
that any new drug study be compared, not with placebo, but with the best
current therapy, and even that can't be identified until a lot of studies
comparing combination drug regimens have been completed.  Also, not to make
things any easier, the fractionation of the patient population, and the number
of contrasting tests, makes it more difficult to recruit for a new study.  I am
not taking the claims of the PMA at face value, but consider that since there
are now alternative treatments for both HIV and most, if not all of the OIs,
there is no longer the same need to fast track in order to have something,
anything available.  Lots of things are less than ideal without necessarily
having a Robert Ludlam type conspiracy behind them.In article <1993Jan11.214126.18142@cs.ucla.edu>, marco@sdf.lonestar.org
(Steve Giammarco) writes:
> John James wrote about how research is going very slowly on what promises
> to be a potentially useful treatment - tat inhibitors.  He surmised that
> nucleoside drug research was more challenging to scientists, hence, no
> incentive to do research. He also alluded to the relative simplicity of
> tat inhibitor research, and the lack of financial incentive.
> 
> My thought: I think the pharmaceutical companies are _clearly_ thinking
> in their own best interests... After all, it behooves anyone in marketing
> to have a large enough universe of people who _need_ your drug to live.
> I'm speculating that the world-wide HIV-infected population is not large
> enough yet to make the tat-inhibitor manufacturer _really_ rich. It is in
> their best interest to allow HIV to spread a few million more folx before
> they leap out with a "hero" drug to save the day.
> 
> What's a few more deaths relative to the number of lives that will be
> spared, and bux to be made?
> 
> My $0.02, of course. Pure speculation. Your mileage may vary.
> 
> -- 
> Steve Giammarco/5330 Peterson Lane/Dallas TX 75240
> marco@sdf.lonestar.org
> loveyameanit.
From: seove@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (ERIC OVERTON)
Newsgroups: sci.med.aids
Subject: Info. on Hyperoxygenation?
Date: 8 Jan 93 19:30:00 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Note: Copyright 1992, Dan R. Greening. Non-commercial reproduction allowed.
Archive-Number: 6737

Does anyone have any info. on Hyperoxygenation as a cure for AIDS
and cancer using peroxide or ozone?
Newsgroups: sci.med.aids
From: crichmon@sedona.intel.com (Chris Richmond)
Subject: Re: rifabutin
Note: Copyright 1992, Dan R. Greening. Non-commercial reproduction allowed.
Archive-Number: 6750
Organization: Intel Corporation
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 15:54:00 GMT

In article <1993Jan12.020522.25034@cs.ucla.edu>, thelke@cpp.uucp (Thomas Helke) writes:
:> An article in "Fort Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel" described
:> "rifabutin," a new FDA-approved antibiotic for treatment
:> of MAC (Mycobacterium avium complex). Does anybody know
:> any more about this drug? Will it be expensive? Has
:> anyone tried it? Is it immunosuppressive, like Septra
:> and other antibiotics? Any information will be appreciated.
 
Not really related to AIDS, but what is meant by :

 "Is it immunosuppressive, like Septra and other antibiotics? "

I have three kids with Cystic Fibrosis that are on Septra, Bactrim, generic
version of same, all the time.  Is this immunosuppression documented in
a place I can find it?  Cystic Fibrosis is a genetic diease that causes
lung and digestive (enzyme) problems.  CF people seem to have the same
kind of problems with oppertunistic (sp) infections that PWA do.

Thanks,  Chris
-- 
 Chris Richmond         |     Internet: crichmon@sedona.intel.com
 Intel, Corp. C3-21     |     Phone: (602)-554-8827
 5000 W. Chandler Blvd. |     This crazy is a world place. 
 Chandler, AZ  85226    |     My think losing I'm mind.
 
Newsgroups: sci.med.aids
From: ns14@crux2.crux2.cit.cornell.edu (Nathan Otto Siemers)
Subject: Re: AZT Resistance
Note: Copyright 1992, Dan R. Greening. Non-commercial reproduction allowed.
Archive-Number: 6729
Organization: Department of Chemistry, Cornell Univ.
Date: 7 Jan 93 04:05:32

>>>>> On Thu, 7 Jan 1993 00:44:23 GMT,
> 
> It makes very interesting reading. I am very curious how the AZT
> "spin doctors" will handle the reality that AZT is not working.
> Considering the number of deaths of people who have used AZT, I have
> doubts that it ever did anything more than suppress the immune
> system.

 Anthony> There is no doubt that AZT works well in *some* people,
 Anthony> although they may be a minority. However, it was never
 Anthony> touted as a "cure", so of course, lots of people are dying
 Anthony> on it. Why is this surprising?

> MORE AIDS PATIENTS SHOW RESISTANCE TO AZT
> 
> More AIDS patients are showing early resistance to AZT, the drug
> most commonly used against the disease, and researchers say there is
> an urgent need to develop new drugs to combat the epidemic.

 Anthony> Considering the rather fundamental mechanism whereby AZT is
 Anthony> "supposed" to work, how could a virus possibly develop a
 Anthony> resistance to it? AZT is a nucleoside analogue that inhibits
 Anthony> the normal function of DNA, which is pretty much the same in
 Anthony> all living creatures. I cannot imagine a mutation that would
 Anthony> substantially change the process of reverse transcription in
 Anthony> a retrovirus.

	No.  

	The general mechanism of transcription is common in all
organisms ( and rev. tr. for retroviruses).  AZT targets a specific
enzyme, hopefully not screwing with legitimate pathways in the host.
The virus is free to evolve to defeat this, and more resistant
versions will appear if some f*^k who is taking azt transmitts it to
another person.

	Correct me if I am wrong.

Nathan Siemers

--
--
/  | / /__|  /  /---/ /__| /  | /    nathan@chemres.tn.cornell.edu
Newsgroups: sci.med.aids
From: thelke@cpp.uucp (Thomas Helke)
Subject: rifabutin
Note: Copyright 1992, Dan R. Greening. Non-commercial reproduction allowed.
Archive-Number: 6744
Organization: Critical Path Project
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 08:44:03 GMT

An article in "Fort Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel" described
"rifabutin," a new FDA-approved antibiotic for treatment
of MAC (Mycobacterium avium complex). Does anybody know
any more about this drug? Will it be expensive? Has
anyone tried it? Is it immunosuppressive, like Septra
and other antibiotics? Any information will be appreciated.

Thomas Helke
thelke@cpp.uucp 

Newsgroups: sci.med.aids
From: markn@comm.mot.com (Mark Nowak)
Subject: Re: fleas as vector for AIDS?
Note: Copyright 1992, Dan R. Greening. Non-commercial reproduction allowed.
Keywords: n
Archive-Number: 6713
Organization: Motorola LMPS
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 08:39:33 GMT

In article <1993Jan4.043144.3277@cs.ucla.edu> davison@sfu.ca (R. Davison) writes:
>I have been reading "Living Things We Love To Hate" by Des Kennedy.
>They have a chapter devoted to Fleas, and some of the diseases they
>have been instumental in turning into epidemics; the Bubonic Plague
>among others.  There is no mention in this reference of AIDS, or HIV,
>but it left we wondering if this is real threat.
>
>Do any of the experts here know whether this is something to consider?
>Have any studies been done?
>As far as I have heard, AIDS has only afflicted primates, is this correct?
>Would dogs, cats, rats, or other flea hosts have to carry the HIV viris
>for this to be real threat?
>Or does the flea itself have to be infected to act as a vector?  My
>current understanding is that it does not.
>
>Rod Davison

I talked with my cat's veterinarian about different diseases, and she told
me that cats have their own AIDS inducing virus -- FIV (Feline Immunodeficiency
Virus).  She said that HIV can't survive in cats and FIV can't survive in
humans.  It makes you wonder if whatever cats have that makes them immune to HIV
could somehow be induced in humans to wipe out HIV.  I get the impression AIDS
researchers don't really know a whole lot about how life really works.  I mean
it was only in this century that researchers stumbled onto antibiotics.  Scary
that luck has so much to do with it.
-- 
Mark Nowak                          | By means of the easy and the simple we
Motorola, Inc.                      | grasp the laws of the whole world.  When
Chicago, Illinois                   | the laws of the whole world are grasped,
INTERNET: markn@ssd.comm.mot.com    | therein lies perfection. - I Ching
Newsgroups: sci.med.aids
From: aberno@godel.questor.wimsey.bc.ca (Anthony Berno)
Subject: Re: AZT Resistance
Note: Copyright 1992, Dan R. Greening. Non-commercial reproduction allowed.
Reply-To: aberno@godel.questor.wimsey.bc.ca
Archive-Number: 6726
Organization: unspecified
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 00:44:23 GMT

In article <1993Jan1.173311.3334@cs.ucla.edu> Billi Goldberg  
<bigoldberg@igc.apc.org> writes:
> The following has been summarized and excerpted from the San Francisco 
> Chronicle, Friday, January 1, 1993.
> 
> It makes very interesting reading. I am very curious how the AZT "spin 
> doctors" will handle the reality that AZT is not working. Considering 
> the number of deaths of people who have used AZT, I have doubts that it 
> ever did anything more than suppress the immune system. 

There is no doubt that AZT works well in *some* people, although they may  
be a minority. However, it was never touted as a "cure", so of course,  
lots of people are dying on it. Why is this surprising?

> MORE AIDS PATIENTS SHOW RESISTANCE TO AZT
> 
> More AIDS patients are showing early resistance to AZT, the drug most 
> commonly used against the disease, and researchers say there is an 
> urgent need to develop new drugs to combat the epidemic.

Considering the rather fundamental mechanism whereby AZT is "supposed" to  
work, how could a virus possibly develop a resistance to it? AZT is a  
nucleoside analogue that inhibits the normal function of DNA, which is  
pretty much the same in all living creatures. I cannot imagine a mutation  
that would substantially change the process of reverse transcription in a  
retrovirus.

I wonder if it's limited effect is not due to some completely different  
mechanism than the one proposed, one which would more easily lead to viral  
resistance. Perhaps the very function of AZT is completely misunderstood.

-Anthony

Newsgroups: sci.med.aids
From: med50003@nusunix1.nus.sg (WANSAICHEONG KHIN-LIN)
Subject: Re: Ventolin
Organization: National University of Singapore
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 04:12:56 GMT

Without starting a whole mess, the earlier studies that were published
linked terfenadine - a long acting beta agonist with increased rates of
mortality in asthmatics. The first of such studies was done in New
Zealand (if I remember correctly) and it caused quite a stir at the
conference in Britain in 1990 - 91.

Partly because of that and because of other evidence showing that severe
asthma is often underestimated and treatment often insufficient, the use
of beta agonists in chronic severe asthmatics without other treatment is
not recommended. 

In young children with mild to moderate asthma, it is probably safe to
use beta agonists. Additional treatment like mast cell stabilisers and
steriods can be added on for control, although I imagine paediatricians
would be careful with the steroid dosage. 

On a personal note, I have many friends who are asthmatic and have been
salbutamol users for a long time - since age 5/6 to 24/5. They have
learned to be fairly sensible with the drug and have certainly benefited
from both therapeutic use when they start an attack and prophylactic use
when they are exposed to situation where an asthmatic attack is likely
e.g. spring cleaning, smoke, dusty rooms, cold air.

gervais
Newsgroups: sci.med
From: denise@isl.stanford.edu (Denise M. Cuevas)
Subject: resisting electromagnetic radiation
Organization: Information Systems Lab, Stanford University
Distribution: sci.med, sci.med.physics, sci.engr.biomed, misc.health.alternative
Date: 7 Jan 93 12:44:23

Call me an ignorant, radical fool, but the fact remains that I want to
decrease my exposure to electromagnetic radiation. I've heard the
pro and con arguments on whether this is a true hazard, and I've
decided to be on the safe side. Unfortunately, I'm surrounded by it,
most noticeably from powerlines near my house and computer terminals
and copiers in my office.

I've heard of people using some device which sprays negative ions in
the air, I believe, in order to reduce the hazard. This doesn't make a
lot of sense to me and leads to the question - is a spray of negative
ions dangerous? 

Has any research been done on blocking electromagnetic radiation? I
assume that planting trees between my house and the power lines
would be ineffective. How about buttressing the walls of my house with
some sort of repulsing material?

I would like to get pregnant soon, so I'm wrestling with whether I
should quit my job (to reduce my exposure to the copiers and
computers) and lose my medical coverage.

Any thoughts?

Thanks,
Denise Cuevas
From: frankm@resonex.com (Frank Muennemann)
Newsgroups: sci.med.physics
Subject: Re: resisting electromagnetic radiation
Date: 8 Jan 93 09:49:43 GMT
Distribution: sci.med.physics
Organization: Resonex Inc., Sunnyvale CA

In article <DENISE.93Jan7175501@isl.stanford.edu> denise@isl.stanford.edu (Denise M. Cuevas) writes:
>
>Call me an ignorant, radical fool, but the fact remains that I want to
>decrease my exposure to electromagnetic radiation. ...

Your posting does not specify WHAT KIND of electromagnetic radiation
you're concerned about:  Cosmic gamma rays? Xrays from medical exams?
Xrays from cathode ray tubes? Ultraviolet A/B? Visible sunlight? 
Infrared radiation? Microwave radiation? High frequency radio waves?
AM broadcast? Low-frequency power-line radiation?

These different classes of EM radiation have entirely different physical
characteristics, though all of them are "electromagnetic radiation."
The kinds of threats they pose to human beings are also quite different.
I believe that 99.999 percent of all human-inhabited places suffer such
low levels of any of these forms of radiation (except UV from sunlight),
you'd reduce your chances of being damaged by your environment much much
more if you'd take action to safeguard the food you eat, the water you
drink, and the air you breathe from toxic chemicals like cigarette
smoke, heavy metals, and industrial pollution.  Electromagnetic
radiation should be a concern if you live or work in very unusual
places:  frequent airline passenger, X-ray technician, tanning addict,
microwave or radio transmitter repair technician, chronic CRT user (or
television watcher) using equipment more than 20 years old.  Probably
others could/would add other classes of people to this list.  Start by
wearing sun-block and broad-brimmed hats whenever you're outside.  This
applies less if you have naturally dark skin.  You MIGHT (this is very
speculative) consider using your electric blanket to warm your bed, then
turning it off before you go to sleep in it (no reason to dump it
entirely!).

>Has any research been done on blocking electromagnetic radiation? ...

I make a career of it:  Not so much protecting humans, but electronic
equipment, which can be much MUCH more sensitive to some kinds of EM
than people are.  Different shielding technologies are appropriate for
different kinds of EM, but in all cases I know of, avoidance is much 
cheaper than shielding.
Newsgroups: sci.med.physics
From: ad198@yfn.ysu.edu (Carl Landis)
Subject: Re: resisting electromagnetic radiation
Reply-To: ad198@yfn.ysu.edu (Carl Landis)
Organization: St. Elizabeth Hospital, Youngstown, OH
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 19:50:05 GMT


In a previous article, denise@isl.stanford.edu (Denise M. Cuevas) says:

>
>Call me an ignorant, radical fool, but the fact remains that I want to
>decrease my exposure to electromagnetic radiation. I've heard the
>pro and con arguments on whether this is a true hazard, and I've
>decided to be on the safe side. Unfortunately, I'm surrounded by it,
>most noticeably from powerlines near my house and computer terminals
>and copiers in my office.
>
>I've heard of people using some device which sprays negative ions in
>the air, I believe, in order to reduce the hazard. This doesn't make a
>lot of sense to me and leads to the question - is a spray of negative
>ions dangerous? 
>
>Has any research been done on blocking electromagnetic radiation? I
>assume that planting trees between my house and the power lines
>would be ineffective. How about buttressing the walls of my house with
>some sort of repulsing material?
>
>I would like to get pregnant soon, so I'm wrestling with whether I
>should quit my job (to reduce my exposure to the copiers and
>computers) and lose my medical coverage.
>
>Any thoughts?

Hi Denise.

Don't quit your job!  There have been articles devoted to this
subject in the past several years in the journal "Health Physics".
By your email address, it appears as if you are at stanford or close
to it. I am sure they would have that journal in one of their
libraries.  

The negative ion spray seems pretty far-fetched.  Perhaps someone
else could comment further.  _I_ have never heard of that one.

Probably the biggest hazard you face from the computers is eyestrain
from staring at the screen all day.  As far as the power lines go, if
they are a few to several lots away, it would seem, judging from the
literature I have seen, that you are OK.  Protecting yourself by re-
modeling your house could be done by building a wire mesh cage all
around you.  But then that doesn't do anything for the power inside your
house.  The best suggestion if you are going to get pregnant is to
throw out your electric blanket and _take care of your body_.  You
know, good nutrition, prenatal vitamins, reasonable exercise, etc.
The best advice on this is to be found in a good obstetrician!

Good Luck!

-Carl
-- 
Newsgroups: sci.med.physics
From: ad198@yfn.ysu.edu (Carl Landis)
Subject: Re: resisting electromagnetic radiation
Reply-To: ad198@yfn.ysu.edu (Carl Landis)
Organization: St. Elizabeth Hospital, Youngstown, OH
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 19:54:18 GMT


In a previous article, denise@isl.stanford.edu (Denise M. Cuevas) says:

>
>Call me an ignorant, radical fool, but the fact remains that I want to
>decrease my exposure to electromagnetic radiation. I've heard the
>pro and con arguments on whether this is a true hazard, and I've
>decided to be on the safe side. Unfortunately, I'm surrounded by it,
>most noticeably from powerlines near my house and computer terminals
>and copiers in my office.
I agree with Frank Muennemann's reply also.
-- 
Newsgroups: sci.med.physics