Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!rutgers!ucla-cs!news
From: MACGYVER%INDYCMS.BITNET@mvs.oac.ucla.edu (MacGyver)
Newsgroups: sci.med.aids
Subject: Re: (2897) Time to illness
Message-ID: <1991Jan16.145226.26214@cs.ucla.edu>
Date: 16 Jan 91 03:33:01 GMT
Sender: news@cs.ucla.edu (Mr. News)
Organization: UCLA, Computer Science Department
Lines: 21
Approved: phil@wubios.wustl.edu
Note: non-commercial reproduction.
Nntp-Posting-Host: squid.cs.ucla.edu
Archive-Number: 2899

On Tue, 15 Jan 91 09:51:37 pst Support Account for SCI.MED.AIDS said:
>

There are also a number of documented cases where the "time lag" is
as long as nine years.

Also, USA Today (and more importantly) NY Times both have articles
about a new "vaccine" which has been approved for human testing.

caveat emptor:  NYTimes is now $0.75

>I was under the impression that the time between infection with HIV and
>the development of illness was somewhere in the area of 5 years.  Yet
>I have also heard that people who received transfusions of infected
>blood (early in the epidemic) were known to get sick within a few months.
>How can this be?  Is it taking longer and longer for people to develop
>OIs?  Does this indicate that HIV is perhaps becoming less virulent?
>
>-Liz
>
><^>v Via SCI.MED.AIDS => AIDSNEWS gateway / aids@cs.ucla.edu