[I'll be your Huckleberry]

Quote from the full article:

SARS so far has presented scientists with a number of perplexing aspects.

Some scientists speculate that the virus doesn't actually kill human cells -- that the immune system's overreaction actually precipitates the destruction of cells of the lung and other parts of the body, precipitating the acute pneumonia that is the disease' hallmark.

In theory, they say, death may be the result of an aberrant or overly sensitive immune response. If that is proved correct, it's possible that HIV patients may actually be at lower risk for SARS precisely because they lack strong immune responses.

(Some scientists----Hmmmm, we may know one of these)

I remember what you are talking about. However, I don't think she said it was not a virus. She basically said she believed we were looking at an immune system destroyer, and we were seeing remnants of opportunistic infections. This what not how she stated it but it was exactly how I phrased the question back to her and she said yes, that was what she meant.

20 posted on 04/22/2003 8:25 PM PDT by riri

I am going to look back and see if I can find MA's exact words.

[CathyRyan]

OK, it is official I am confused.

Can someone type real slow so I can understand this?

You are saying that while a person is infected with sars it acts like AIDS to compromise the immune system?

That is why an AIDS patient do not get sars is because their immune system is already trashed?

Does a person's immune system stay trashed after recovery from sars?

Does sars attack the immune system or does the immune system over attack sars?

If sars attacks the immune system and over powers it then an opportunistic disease can come in or if sars is over powered by the immune system then the person can die?

Why wouldn’t everyone who get sars be dead either from the over reaction of the immune system or from the opportunistic disease?