Slashdot Mirror


Man Cures Himself of HIV?

IZ Reloaded writes "A 25 yr old British man could be the first person in the world to have cured himself of the deadly HIV virus. He was diagnosed HIV positive in 2002. After another test done the following year, he stunned doctors when his test results turned negative. He is now a wanted man after researchers and doctors want him to come back for further testing but he has so far refused. Experts think he could have something in his immune system that may help in producing vaccines against HIV."

909 comments

  1. How sure? by jrockway · · Score: 5, Interesting

    What if the test was wrong? Maybe he didn't have AIDS when first tested, or maybe the test didn't pick it up this time. And why is the guy afraid to be retested?

    --
    My other car is first.
    1. Re:How sure? by ValiantSoul · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Maybe he doesn't want to for the rest of his life be studied by some scientists. I would love to help people but I sure as hell wouldn't want to spend the rest of my life in front of doctors if I was in his position, I would rather continue a "normal" life (you know, normal, /. reading computer geek)

    2. Re:How sure? by calyptos · · Score: 1

      If you found out you had HIV, would you ask for a retest just to be sure it wasn't a mistake? Or would you be all cool about it: "Oh, that sucks. Thanks for your help doctor, I have a hot date I have to go cancel now. See you at my next checkup."

      --
      http://illhostit.com/ - Webhosting
    3. Re:How sure? by Crizp · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As TFA said; he became depressed and suicidal when he got diagnosis. Then, he learns that it has gone away. I suspect that he's afraid that the next test he takes will be positive; probably not able to cope with that.

      It's always a possibility the first, or second test was erroneous.

    4. Re:How sure? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      HIV != AIDS just to let you know
      HIV is a precursor to AIDS

    5. Re:How sure? by ilitirit · · Score: 3, Interesting

      For interest's sake:

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4432564.stm

      Some 14 months later he was offered another test by doctors, which came back negative.

      He sought compensation but has apparently been told there is no case to answer because there was no fault with the testing procedure.

    6. Re:How sure? by nacturation · · Score: 4, Funny

      No research necessary -- the answer is in plain sight: "A 25 yr old British man could be the first people...

      Clearly this man is more than one person, judging by the use of the word "people" when referring to an individual. Perhaps when the man was first tested it was his second person they tested. Upon subsequent tests, it's his first person. Case closed! Another fine caper solved by ScuttleMonkey.

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    7. Re:How sure? by caenorhabditas · · Score: 3, Informative

      Certainly a false positive is a problem. A friend of mine had a positive test for HIV come back after donating blood, which surprised him because he does not engage in the sort of risky behavior that typically puts one at risk for HIV infection.

      From the article, it sounds like he only got two tests for HIV, so it's possible the first one was just a false positive. However, the description of him as suicidal and the fact that he waited so long before getting a second test seems to indicate that either he doesn't know much about HIV transmission or he did engage in behavior that put him at HIV infection risk.

      Either way, I'm sure that researchers will find something interesting if he's willing to help out. If it wasn't a false positive and his body was able to clear itself of HIV, that would be quite an accomplishment.

    8. Re:How sure? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >> And why is the guy afraid to be retested?

      Do you remember the tv series "The Inmortal"?
      Perhaps the guy doesn't want to be hunted down because of his blood...

    9. Re:How sure? by AuMatar · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This is a disease thats killing hundreds of thousands a year. The very least he can do is have some blood taken and get some physicals. I'm not at all certain he should get the choice not to.

      I would, however, be very leery of the original test. The aids test does give false positives, I would expect him to be one.

      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
    10. Re:How sure? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      He's obviously Legion.

    11. Re:How sure? by Tatarize · · Score: 0

      Perhaps he is HIV positive, and has an HIV negative identical twin. Go into a place, get tested several times, have brother go in to be tested several more times. OH, MY GOD HE WAS CURED! Cue, book deal and poppycock elixers!

      --

      It is no longer uncommon to be uncommon.
    12. Re:How sure? by aussie_a · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm not at all certain he should get the choice not to.

      Oh I agree. The second the sick become cured they should have their liberties and freedom to make choices about what they do with their body be taken away. Perhaps it should start with having to be tested indefinitely, and progress to having to donate their non-necessary organs.

    13. Re:How sure? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He didn't have AIDS. He was HIV positive.

    14. Re:How sure? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      He sought compensation

      Wow, really? Let's see, you visit a doctor who tells you that you contracted a deadly virus and, by current medical standards, your life is going to end sooner than normally. Then you get checked again and there is no trace of the virus.

      So the first thing this dumbass does is seek compensation instead of living his life better than ever before?

    15. Re:How sure? by mattspammail · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, exacltly! Finally, someone gets it!

      Okay, so don't force him to submit for tests. But look at the bright side. Maybe karma will get him, even if HIV (turned AIDS) won't.

      Either way, at this point, he's ranking very high on the piece of shit-o-meter.

      --
      Now accepting PayPal donations!
    16. Re:How sure? by baadger · · Score: 1

      Well if he thought he only had so long to live, he might want the compensation to pay for all the things he did thinking he wouldn't have to face a more serious consequence than an early death.

    17. Re:How sure? by afaik_ianal · · Score: 1

      However, the description of him as suicidal and the fact that he waited so long before getting a second test seems to indicate that either he doesn't know much about HIV transmission or he did engage in behavior that put him at HIV infection risk.

      From News of the World article, "Gay Andrew, from Largs, Ayrshire, caught the virus from his HIV-positive boyfriend Juan." Does that count? ;)

    18. Re:How sure? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AIDS != HIV.

    19. Re:How sure? by syukton · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Either way, at this point, he's ranking very high on the piece of shit-o-meter.


      Why? because he doesn't want to be a lab rat? Because he doesn't want some drug company patenting his genes? Because he doesn't want anybody turning a profit on his immune system?
      --
      Reinvent the wheel only at either a lower cost, greater effectiveness, or your own personal enrichment and satisfaction.
    20. Re:How sure? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, because all those millions of people dying each year have absolutely nothing to do with it.

      Even his partner, will probably die from it. All because he doesn't want the attention.

    21. Re:How sure? by Solidsnot · · Score: 1

      This article was very different than the first one I read about this.

      http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1871540, 00.html

    22. Re:How sure? by indifferent+children · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'm sorry, but your immune system was released under the GPL, and you must release any modifications.

      --
      Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it. --Mark Twain
    23. Re:How sure? by mattspammail · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Perhaps I'm reading it incorrectly, but anyone who is cured might want to help humanity instead of first aiming their crosshairs at the company who tested him and looking to sue. Perhaps he'll change his tune soon, in which case, the world (most noticeably the gay community, of which he is a member) might truly be better off because of him. But at this point, he's a piece of shit. Holding on to the possible genetic KEY to stopping this disease is among the most selfish things I've ever heard. Why is he so afraid of helping out? Being in the history books as the person whose immune system helped solved HIV wouldn't be the worst thing in the world. Instead, he's out there thinking he's Darva Conger.

      --
      Now accepting PayPal donations!
    24. Re:How sure? by i+wanted+another+nam · · Score: 1

      AIDS is a symptom of HIV infection. Not everybody who has HIV will develop AIDS.

      --
      The image is a dream, the beauty is real. Can you see the difference?
    25. Re:How sure? by thuh+Freak · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because HIV leads to AIDS. AIDS has killed millions of people (idk the figure), this person is (presumed to be) the first to actually be cured of it, and he chooses to deny modern medical science the opportunity of even attempting to help others. the are huge huge tracts of land of human beings dying with this disease, and he does nothing to even try and help. he is a shithead. there aren't enough cursewords for a selfish person like that. if i recognized him on the street, i'd piss in his eye.

      --
      I wish that I was a catfish.
    26. Re:How sure? by fakeplasticusername · · Score: 1

      Fine, I agree with the civil-liberties nazis claiming that he can't be forced to go in for testing. But I also think that people should use every legal means necessary to coerce him to do so. Just because it is illegal to arrest the guy and drag him to the hospital in handcuffs, doesn't mean that you can't torture him emotionally until he bends to societies will. Write the guy letters, 10 a day, call him on the phone, show up at his house, his work, his family events, make this guy feel like millions of people around the world will spit on him and hate him for the rest of his life until he does what is the utilitarian "right thing" to do.

      Fall just short of actually physically making this man do what you want using illegal means, and he will eventually give in.

    27. Re:How sure? by krumms · · Score: 1

      Scared or not, it sounds a bit irresponsible :S I mean ... dude goes off, has wild kinky sex with people ... winds up actually being positive.

    28. Re:How sure? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      That has got to be one of the most selfish things i've ever heard. You have the chance to possibly cure the world of aids, and you'd rather sit in front of your computer reading?

    29. Re:How sure? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He never had aids, you ignorant piece of fuck. He *was* tested HIV+ however.

    30. Re:How sure? by Chrispy1000000+the+2 · · Score: 1

      That's true, they might die of an accident first. But barring that, well, it's just a matter of time, no?

      --
      Sig
    31. Re:How sure? by JabberWokky · · Score: 4, Insightful
      To you, I simply say that other people are certainly within their rights to have radically different priorities. But I have a feeling you already know that.

      It's really to everybody attacking you that I will point out that it's well within mattspammail's rights to feel the guy is "a piece of shit", and even to voice that opinion. He's judging the man on his actions... you know, the legitimate and proper way to judge someone? I don't think you'll find some trick of logic to convince him otherwise. It's a fairly strightforward judgement that somebody who turns their back on entire continents worth of infected people has made a terrible decision.

      You can judge a person as being horrible due to their actions and still understand that it's their right to be so.

      --
      Evan

      --
      "$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
    32. Re:How sure? by ViciousCircuit · · Score: 1

      Despite the fact that I agree with you on how selfish and wrong it is to deny the world a chance for a cure, I see why he wouldn't want to submit to testing. The CDC (or British equivalent) would turn him into a lab rat or worse. I don't believe he will be able to keep refusing testing. I say give it a couple of weeks and he will be bound by law to help. I may be going mad, but I even believe the government will say that by NOT helping, he's aiding the spread of HIV and deaths of billions of people. At least that's how my government would do it. If we don't hear anything about him in coming weeks... that's what happened.

      --
      "To infinity and beyond?" I just don't get how that's poossible, but whatever you say, man.
    33. Re:How sure? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This has happened before. There was a case in the UK about 10 years ago (I can't remember the details, but reading this just reminded me of it) where a man was wrongly diagnosed with terminal cancer, and was told that he had less than 12 months to live.

      So after getting over the shock, and realising that he has an insurance policy which will provide very handsomely for his wife and kids upon his death, he decides to spend the rest of his life living the high-life with his family. Husband and wife both left their jobs, sold their house, and spent the next 6 months cruising, staying in luxurious hotels and generally living a life of luxury on the proceeds of the house sale and their life savings.

      Then 6 months later the hospital catches up with him and apologises. Turns out that he has a benign cyst, not an inoperable tumour, and they will be able to remove it in a fairly routine operation.

      End result: family have no home and no savings, and the insurance policy does not pay out because the man is still alive and in good health. Unsurprisingly he sued the health authority but I'm not sure of the outcome.

    34. Re:How sure? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I haven't had the chance to read TFA yet, but I doubt that anyone would claim he was cured from the disease without, like, running some extra tests for verification. If every false negative that's ever been reported made headlines, we would see these things hundreds of time a day.

    35. Re:How sure? by arth1 · · Score: 4, Informative
      Crizp (216129) wrote:
      As TFA said; he became depressed and suicidal when he got diagnosis. Then, he learns that it has gone away. I suspect that he's afraid that the next test he takes will be positive; probably not able to cope with that.


      Not in this case. From AFA:
      14 months later a blood test suggested that he no longer carried the virus. A further three tests confirmed the finding.

      Perhaps the guy just wants to lead a normal life now. He should be in his full right to choose so, and no one has the right to claim that he must do anything -- it's his life and his choices. He doesn't owe HIV infected people or "humanity" any damn thing.

      Someone here proposed harassing him. I find that totally reprehensible, and just recommending it is illegal most places. Post that recommendation again with your full name and address.

      What's next? What else should be forced upon individuals because it's clearly in the best interest of humanity? Where are the limits? Anyone who doesn't think there are any, and that the need of humanity goes before the need of individuals have justified Dr Mengele and his research too.

      Regards,
      --
      *Art
    36. Re:How sure? by onepoint · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I look at this situation from 2 views, one personal experience and one on a business level. My father had the chance to become a test subject to a new device, a rather important one.

      At the meeting which my father wanted me at, he asked " since it's me you are testing on, what is the cut of the action I will get for each one sold" Honest questions ask jokingly. The reply was: you got to be kidding, we don't do such a thing.

      my father turned serious and said to them, "OK, I'm no longer interested". They replied, "but you'll be dead in a year", dad said " OK, so what, find someone else". We just got up and left... this was 10 years ago and dad is still alive, he's got some special rare blood that they pay ton of money for, but instead he finds children research places and gives it away as charity.

      From a business stand point, the guy is sitting on a gold mine. I would offer myself up to the back end residual bidder and get the royalties.

      From a human level, I would negotiate that the cure should be offered straight out as generic drug. everyone could win.

      The guy has a right to do nothing legally. Now the question comes, does he have the moral rights to do nothing?

      onepoint

      --
      if you see me, smile and say hello.
    37. Re:How sure? by Ayaress · · Score: 1

      More likely the first, if they used the same test they use now. It's false negative rate is so low as to be zero, but it's false positive rate is actually higher than the rate of HIV infection, so only around a third of those who test positive and agree to follow-up testing are confirmed to have the disease.

      The article doesn't say anything about what tests he had done, but it sounds like it was just that one test. If that's the case, he could have tested false positive, freaked out, and refused further testing.

    38. Re:How sure? by j-turkey · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Excepting children unfortunate enough to have HIV passed on to them from birth, the virus is largely spread through irresponsible behavior.

      Right, like all of those young girls in South Africa who were raped by men with AIDS. Those little irresponsible bitches -- ruining it for the rest of us!

      Perhaps, just for a second, you should step off of your high horse. Maybe some day you'll appreciate someone not looking down their nose at you when you're in a very bad position. It's always someone else's mess until someone you love is affected. It's clear that you've never seen someone close to you wither away and die from this horrible disease. Perhaps when it does happen, you should mention to that person that you're not going to waste any tears for them, since it was (most likely) a result of their irresponsible behavior.

      --

      -Turkey

    39. Re:How sure? by somersault · · Score: 5, Informative

      From BBC News website (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4432564.stm) "He has told the papers he would do anything he could to help find a cure." Sounds to me like he's not being as much of a piece of shit as people here led me to believe =p

      --
      which is totally what she said
    40. Re:How sure? by miskatonic+alumnus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Let me ask you this: Do you have any disposable income? And, is there any poverty stricken, homeless, or sick people in the city where you live? If so, why don't YOU donate all your disposable time and money to help them? Maybe people should send tons of threatening mail to you and bang on your door in an attempt to force you to "do the right thing".

      If you have the money and the time to surf the net and post on /., you could be out in the real world helping people. Put your money where your mouth is. If you are not willing to do that, then S.T.F.U.

    41. Re:How sure? by VAXcat · · Score: 1

      It's like the circa 1968 TV series, "The Immortal"...after a person donates blood to a blood bank, the blood is discovered to have potent rejuvenating properties. The evil medical industrial complex is determined to capture him and use him for a lab rat, so he has to go on the run...pretty decent series, but it didn't run long enough to go into syndication.

      --
      There is no God, and Dirac is his prophet.
    42. Re:How sure? by xWastedMindx · · Score: 1

      What if the test was wrong? Maybe he didn't have AIDS when first tested, or maybe the test didn't pick it up this time. And why is the guy afraid to be retested?

      I didnt want to do this.. but it seems no one else caught it..

      If you RTFA, it's HIV, not AIDS.
      And it also didnt say he was afraid, he just "declined to undergo further tests".

      :)

    43. Re:How sure? by 'nother+poster · · Score: 1

      Well, you're reading Slashdot rather than working on your AIDS vaccine. That means YOU are contributing to the spread of AIDS. How dare you!

      I assume you are wanting the commons to pass the "AIDS cure slavery act". If anyone has any possibility of contributing to a possible cure for AIDS you are to report to the research camps immediately. Your rights and freedoms as a citizen of the British Commonwealth are hereby revoked.

    44. Re:How sure? by cbreaker · · Score: 1

      How and why do you think this man would become a "lab rat?" That's the most absurd thing I've ever heard.

      If he were truly willing to help out, I'm sure they'd make it as comfortable and easy as possible - probably several blood tests over the course of a year or two.

      --
      - It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
    45. Re:How sure? by hfnarqkh · · Score: 2, Interesting
      ...anyone who is cured might want to help humanity...

      I agree. Anyone who is cured would and should want to help. I got the impression from TFA, however, that this particular individual doesn't believe he was cured. The only logical reason I can see that he would want to sue is that he believes that the first test that showed him as HIV positive was the result of some kind of error on the part of the lab.

      He mentions being depressed and suicidal afterwards. Assuming that the company who tested him was at fault for a false positive result, I can see him being very angry about the entire situation.

      There is, of course, no proof that I'm aware of to validate that position, but if we're going to speculate on this guy's motives, it can't hurt to speculate from any side we can think of....

      --
      I.t.A.
    46. Re:How sure? by c_forq · · Score: 2, Informative

      No. It is possible for people to carry HIV and never catch it (like how some people can carry strains of a virus that they themselves are immune to). Some people carry HIV until they die and never show any signs or symptoms of having it, other then a positive test (and maybe a trail of others they infected).

      --
      Computers allow humans to make mistakes at the fastest speeds known, with the possible exception of tequila and handguns
    47. Re:How sure? by sjames · · Score: 1

      He may also object to the possability of finding that someone has effectively patented his immune system and expects to make billions from it.

      I found the statement: we offered him further tests to help us investigate and find an explanation for the different results.

      I offered my neighbors the opportunity to mow my lawn to help me maintain my yard, but for some reason they declined. Perhaps it's that attitude he doesn't like. Perhaps he can't afford to take time off from work. With something this important, perhaps they should offer to pay him to take the additional tests, at least enough to make up for lost work.

      He may also have the very human irrational fear of jinxing his good luck.

    48. Re:How sure? by Cigarra · · Score: 1

      What's next? What else should be forced upon individuals because it's clearly in the best interest of humanity? Where are the limits? Anyone who doesn't think there are any, and that the need of humanity goes before the need of individuals have justified Dr Mengele and his research too.

      Man that's a little naive and narrow minded. Suppose YOU are in the position where you can decide saving 1000 lives by sacrifying one. Just one. Maybe yours, maybe someone else's. But you and only you have that responsability. What would you do?

      --
      I don't have a sig.
    49. Re:How sure? by rufty_tufty · · Score: 1

      Where do you get your information that he is part of the gay community? I didn't notice it in the article?

      --
      "The weirdest thing about a mind, is that every answer that you find, is the basis of a brand new cliche" -
    50. Re:How sure? by rufty_tufty · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Ok, you've developed a computer program which microsoft say will save millions of people by it's analysis of the human genome and help with the construction of a life saving wdiget.

      Microsoft wants it for this purpose. You don't trust their motives, you think they'll just use it for their own profit and exploit people and you just want to be left the hell alone.
      And saying that you'd release your program under GPL is not an option, as this option doesn't exist in the medical world.

      Should I piss in your eye now?

      You have a right to your property, if my body isn't my property, then what the hell is?

      --
      "The weirdest thing about a mind, is that every answer that you find, is the basis of a brand new cliche" -
    51. Re:How sure? by sjames · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Perhaps I'm reading it incorrectly, but anyone who is cured might want to help humanity instead of first aiming their crosshairs at the company who tested him and looking to sue.

      Given the odds of a botched test vs the odds of fighting off the AIDS virus, he can easily enough be forgiven for assuming the first test was screwed up and so needlessly left him in fear for the rest of his life for a period of over a year.

    52. Re:How sure? by Aumaden · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's not quite the same thing. Now if he was the *only* person in the world with disposable time and money, you might have a point.

    53. Re:How sure? by Slashdot+Junky · · Score: 1

      One of the two tests obviously are wrong. I'd venture to say that he has refused testing, because he knows that the second test result could be a false negative. A third test could bring back the depression and suicidal thoughts, and he wants to continue thinking that he isn't HIV-positive. For the sake of his sexual partners, I sure hope that he is not infected.

      Later,
      -Slashdot Junky

      --
      .
      Landfill Mining Co.
      Managing the (Un)natural Resources of Tomorrow
    54. Re:How sure? by kotj.mf · · Score: 1
      I anticipated this type of response. That is why I said LARGELY spread, rather than EXCLUSIVELY spread. Thousands of people die a year in the US from automobile collisions. Do you have an automobile? If so, why not get rid of it? Maybe you've never seen a loved one mangled in a car crash. Mention you won't waste any tears for them, because you have a right to drive.

      So we stop spending money on breast cancer research, because women could just lop off their titties at puberty and avoid the whole thing.

      And we stop spending money on cardiovascular research and diabetes, because with the exception of people who got that way genetically, the vast majority of sufferers got that way from being irresponsible fatasses.

      Or maybe we just accept the fact that we don't have the moral authority to decide whether a person deserves to be sick or not. Got a cold? You should have been wearing a HEPA filter over your face.

      --
      hang brain.
    55. Re:How sure? by sharkman67 · · Score: 1

      Your kidding right? What about his rights?

      What should be done is to approach him and offer him some kind of compensation for being stuck like a pin cushion. A lump sum? Maybe it was big enough. I'd hold out for a percentage of the action if the drug companies develop a cure.

      Why should someone else profit from him and not give him a cut? If I were him I'd also immediately put in his will that he is to be cremated as soon as possible after death. On the more compasionate side I'd also consider being a lab rat for free if I was guaranteed that the drug was going to be given away for free. Fat chance at that hapening...

    56. Re:How sure? by lordofthechia · · Score: 1

      If he did have HIV I'm sure they'll be able to prove that once they have him. The tests actually look for antibodies produced by the Infected individual, so there should be some remnants of those in him (IANAD).

      Not sure why he *was* afraid (too many reasons come to mind). But he did ! http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1871540, 00.html

      --
      Georgia Tech, the leader in Chia(tm) technology.
    57. Re:How sure? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is already a familial gene known to kill HIV flat. People with it are immune (they are descendants of survivors of another lethal illness). People with this gene are immune to HIV in the first place. So this guy is by no means the only possible KEY.

    58. Re:How sure? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, I see. Altruism shouldn't be practiced unless you can help millions of people. Thanks for the hypocrisy.

    59. Re:How sure? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you that clueless?

      Do you have any idea how many infants (we're talking weeks after birth, here) in Africa are maimed, infected, and/or killed when raped by adults because they believe sex with a virgin is a cure for the disease?

      Did you also forget the infections due to blood transfusions, medical treatment (Both the giving of and recieving of), or the millions osffering with the disiease due to the admittedly irresponsible behaviour of a loved one?

      What did they do? How did they "not take care of themselves"? Do not be so stupid as to claim the disease only affects those who deserve it, especially since a death-sentance is a poor judgement for nearly *any* "irresponsible" behaviour.

      Asre you even f'ing human?

    60. Re:How sure? by j-turkey · · Score: 1
      Or maybe we just accept the fact that we don't have the moral authority to decide whether a person deserves to be sick or not.

      Thank you. This is where I was going.

      --

      -Turkey

    61. Re:How sure? by Yawgm8th · · Score: 0
      "I'm not at all certain he should get the choice not to." --AuMatar

      Despite my pro-communism and pro-technological-singularity ideas, i still disagree with this opinion. It is important for everyone to have the ability to make choices. If this happened to me, I would want it to be my decision, not the states, not the worlds, not the /. community.

      --
      do unto others as you would have them do unto you
    62. Re:How sure? by mochan_s · · Score: 4, Funny

      Maybe he doesn't want to for the rest of his life be studied by some scientists. I would love to help people but I sure as hell wouldn't want to spend the rest of my life in front of doctors if I was in his position, I would rather continue a "normal" life (you know, normal, /. reading computer geek)

      Are you crazy!

      If I had the cure to HIV running in my veins, I'd first get legal advice on how to best financially exploit the situation.

    63. Re:How sure? by Archtech · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Even if this guy wanted to share his genetic information with the rest of us, is he legally entitled to do so? What if the relevant genes are among those already patented by certain corporations?

      Btw, this is a classic acid test of the true meaning of liberty. Too many people are all for freedom to say things everyone agrees with, do what everyone else does, and pursue popularity by any and all means. Freedom of speech means freedom to say things that other people *hate*, and freedom of choice means freedom to withhold cooperation from life-saving medical research. By all means maintain that this guy is obliged to cooperate - but if so, don't imagine that you believe in liberty, or that he could be forced to cooperate in a free country.

      OTOH, I believe you are entirely free to call him a shit to your heart's content (if it helps).

      --
      I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
    64. Re:How sure? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those responsible for the tests (City of Westminister Health Authority) have confirmed that the test were accurate and correct.

    65. Re:How sure? by Matt+Perry · · Score: 1

      Who or what is a Darva Conger? Google didn't turn up anything definitive.

      --
      Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
    66. Re:How sure? by ghost_world · · Score: 1

      OK, let me get your philosophy down:
      So if something bad happens to you as the direct result of your own actions, then you deserve no pity, and no one should bother to help you.

      Well, that's just peachy. Are you saying that all of the people you love are very responsible and never do stupid things? If so, then you either are very lucky, or have no loved ones...

      Or perhaps you're a pure darwinian:
      "No mom, I will not bother to take you to the hospital. It's your own damn fault that you got drunk and broke your ankle in a culvert."

    67. Re:How sure? by Mistshadow2k4 · · Score: 1

      Boo frigging hoo. Helping people? There's achance that blood samples from this man just might save people's lives. Like my sisters. I think that's a bit more important than just "helping people" - that sounds like your every day charity work. If studying me and taking blood samples could possibly cure HIV I'd do it. But then I consider other people's live to be important.

      --
      I dream of a better world... one in which chickens can cross roads without their motives being questioned.
    68. Re:How sure? by xilmaril · · Score: 1

      be really, really, really torn apart, and agonize about the decision as I had never agonized over anything before. just as I think most people would, if it was their own life.

      if it was someone elses, I'd probably let the one guy live, but this guy isn't going to die, and the 1000 people aren't neccesarily going to be saved, so it's not that kind of choice.

    69. Re:How sure? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, he apparently spent the weekend giving (paid) interviews to various newspapers and other media outlets, and has acquired a "publicity agent" at some point. To me, those are the actions of someone preparing to milk this for everything they can.

    70. Re:How sure? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Spot on. I'd friend you, but... I won't. My user record belongs to ME, not Slashdot. I don't want legions of Slash-bots gangprobing me and testing my blood for a possible FOES cure.

    71. Re:How sure? by lordofthechia · · Score: 1

      Bah, talk about mangled post :/

      This is the link to how the HIV tests work.

      --
      Georgia Tech, the leader in Chia(tm) technology.
    72. Re:How sure? by flazz · · Score: 0
      There was a post http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/10/07/001020 9 about african hookers being immune to HIV, and as soon as scientists started additional experiments they got un-immune.?

      If I just got cured of HIV, I would leave well enough alone, and enjoy the every second of my life.

    73. Re:How sure? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right, like all of those young girls in South Africa who were raped by men with AIDS. Those little irresponsible bitches -- ruining it for the rest of us!

      This paragraph, when corrected, reads as:

      "Right, like all of those young girls in South Africa who were raped by men with AIDS. Those irresponsible criminals -- ruining it for the rest of us!"

    74. Re:How sure? by sgt+scrub · · Score: 1

      Maybe none of the doctors interested him. Someone needs to find him a nice sexy doctor that would make even his mother proud.

      --
      Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
    75. Re:How sure? by Gadgetfreak · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Rape is still irresponsible behavior. It's just one of many that happens to not adversely affect the irresponsible party. Much like problems of gun control and drunk driving, a culture must adress the question of who bears the responsibility... perhaps not for each instance, but for the problem as a whole.
          Both AIDS and rape are problems to be addressed by everyone, not just rapists/victims or HIV+ people. Often times, the responsibility supercedes those who are to blame.

      --
      "No fair, you changed the outcome by measuring it!" - Professor Hubert J. Farnsworth
    76. Re:How sure? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must have HIV.

    77. Re:How sure? by poot_rootbeer · · Score: 1

      I suspect that he's afraid that the next test he takes will be positive; probably not able to cope with that.

      Yes, and I suspect that now that he no longer thinks he's HIV-positive, he's going to have unprotected sex with some poor woman and end up giving her the gift that keeps on giving.

      I don't much care about this guy's coping ability; he has a duty to Society and to Science to get his test results confirmed.

    78. Re:How sure? by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      It isn't what you would do, or I would do or anybody would or evne should do. It's about what someone is "REQUIRED BY LAW" to do. All they can do is ask. If he says No then they have to movie on. Sorry.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    79. Re:How sure? by Chewbacon · · Score: 1

      Typically, several tests are done. Whether it is done on one sample or multiple samples is preference of the lab. It is very possible (and likely) that the lab mislabled his and another patient's samples. So he may have never had HIV, but there is someone walking around who does and thinks he's clean.

      --
      Chewbacon
      The Bible is like Wikipedia: written by a bunch of people and verifiable by questionable sources.
    80. Re:How sure? by Afrosheen · · Score: 3, Funny

      Come on dude, we all watched Spielberg's E.T. We know how things turn out when scientists get involved!

    81. Re:How sure? by miskatonic+alumnus · · Score: 1

      There is a difference between giving of your own free will, and being coerced to give. It is hypocritical to berate someone for not helping if you don't do everything you can to help. If you are so concerned about the welfare of others, go to the poorest part of your town, pick up some destitute soul, and invite them to your home to sup. Go on. Get to it.

    82. Re:How sure? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's different to judge someone by their action vs inaction. People do not have an obligation to share things. If I were him, I'd aim to profit from it. If someone wants to do research on my imune system, I'd want to make sure I get some royalties. It's certainly within his rights to just say no as well. Are rich people scum because they don't share their money to help eliminate poverty? Some think so, some don't. In the end, evolution will cure HIV. That's an ugly way to solve the problem, but it is likely to be true given there is already a gene that seems to offer immunity.

    83. Re:How sure? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sir,

      As an emergency services volunteer who recently had a scare after having had blood spat in my eye by a patient I was pulling out of a crashed vehicle, I applaud your generosity of spirit and well-rounded views.

      Oh wait, no. I think you're a cunt.

    84. Re:How sure? by Solitude · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I'll sacrifice YOUR life, but not that of myself or my family. Satisfied now?

    85. Re:How sure? by miskatonic+alumnus · · Score: 1

      No. You are putting words in my mouth. Go back and find where I said people deserve no pity. If someone wants to help them, I have no problem with that. Likewise --- and here is the point --- if someone chooses NOT to help them, I have no problem with that either. For otherwise, I should spend most of my time and energies helping other people. Who here is willing to go that far? No one, I'll wager.

    86. Re:How sure? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok. Let me get this straight. This guy wouldn't want to help all of humanity because someone may profit? Who's the asshole here?

      I guess hatred of anything (YES EVEN HATRED OF THE EVIL PROFIT) makes a person act irrationally.

    87. Re:How sure? by Landshark17 · · Score: 0

      I saw an interesting special on PBS once about HIV, AIDS, and the Black Death. Apparently, there was a village in Britain called Eyam where it was common for residents to have a genetic mutation that made them either completely immune to Black Death, or able to fight it off. Many years later, during the 1980s, there was a gay man who's partners were all dying of AIDS, but he never became ill. After quite a bit of testing and geneology research, they found that his ancestors went back to Eyam and that the genetic mutation which had protected the villagers from Black Death was protecting him from HIV and AIDS.

      Check it out: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/secrets/case_plague/

      --
      This sig is false.
    88. Re:How sure? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe he's a comix reader and doesn't want to be another Wolverine.

    89. Re:How sure? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      RTFA. It was confirmed THREE times, and he's gay.

    90. Re:How sure? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you retarded? The guy said that sure but if you read that same article it says the medical community is basically begging him for another test and he wont do it. Actions speak louder than words, and maybe someone who is a peice of shit isn't exactly the most truthful guy either?
      Or maybe you're just flat fucking dumb.

    91. Re:How sure? by Oracle+of+Bandwidth · · Score: 1

      AIDS is a horrible dieases, but he is not responcible for anyone but himself. I just have to agree with you that no one is truly free, unless he cannot be compelled to comply.

    92. Re:How sure? by kotj.mf · · Score: 1
      There is a difference between giving of your own free will, and being coerced to give. It is hypocritical to berate someone for not helping if you don't do everything you can to help. If you are so concerned about the welfare of others, go to the poorest part of your town, pick up some destitute soul, and invite them to your home to sup. Go on. Get to it.

      Huh?

      I'm taking issue with your statement that HIV is spread through irresponsible behavior (presumably, butt sex and spiking), and therefore sufferers should be left to "take care of themselves." That's pretty excreable. It's the same as saying that if you're going 66mph in a 65 zone, you should have no right to medical care should you manage to get in a wreck.

      I don't personally believe the guy should be forced to submit to further testing, but I've got no problem with making him feel like a douche about it.

      --
      hang brain.
    93. Re:How sure? by AuMatar · · Score: 1

      This wasn't a mild flu or the common cold here. This is a disease that kills millions each year. If all they want to do is draw some blood and run some physicals, then yes, he damn well should be forced to do it. His inactions may cause hundreds of thousands or millions to die who otherwise could have been saved. Their rights trump his, any day of the week.

      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
    94. Re:How sure? by miskatonic+alumnus · · Score: 1

      Well, I'm sorry that you misinterpreted what I said. When I said people should take care of themselves, I meant prevention, not cure. I certainly did not mean to imply that victims of AIDS deserve no help. Rather, that people should actively stay away from dangerous situations so that they avoid contracting it to begin with.

      I also have no problem with pointing out the hypocrisy of those who complain that others don't do enough to help, when almost certainly they themselves could do more to help.

    95. Re:How sure? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've a friend here in the northeastern US that this same scenario happened to. Though, he didn't get the press coverage. I believe the accepted thought is that it was a misdiagnosis. Though, that's not to say something interesting has happened here. I was suspicious when I heard the story on CNN; for want of getting more facts and hearing the story from different angles. There is other evidence to suggest human bodies can be taught to fight HIV - as I recall, a group of prostitutes in Africa were being studied for their body's resistance to the virus. Never heard much of that thereafter.

    96. Re:How sure? by AuMatar · · Score: 1

      I don't think his rights outweigh the lives of all the people who die of the disease yearly.

      That said, yes he should be compensated fairly for his time doing the study. It will take time out of the rest of his life, paying him a bit doesn't seem unreasonable.

      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
    97. Re:How sure? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "i'd piss in his eye."

      Oh sure, give him AIDS again. That'll fix him.

    98. Re:How sure? by whimmel · · Score: 1

      The respective governments should force him to do it. Those thousands of people could be paying taxes instead of dying

      --
      Does the name Pavlov ring a bell?
    99. Re:How sure? by ghost_world · · Score: 1

      Fine, I agree with you that no one should be forced to help others...
      And it's OK that everyone is not doing everything they can to help others all the time...

      But I reserve the right to call someone who does not take advantage of a unique opportunity to help an a$$hole.

    100. Re:How sure? by canajin56 · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Good point, and it got me thinking...I tried looking up how accurate the HIV test is. All the websites I found initially claimed its between 99.99% - 100% accurate, with false positives being essentially impossible. Research papers, however, put it between 98.6%, and 99% accurate. So out of 100 people without HIV, at least 1 will yield a false positive. Note that these errors do not include lab errors and faulty tests, which can be countered by redoing the test, but the actual chance of somebody without the disease reading positive no matter how many tests are done. (In other words, its the accuracy of what you are testing for, rather than how you are testing for it)

      The most interesting thing about HIV tests is that they actually check for AIDS instead! The most common test, the one claimed to be false-positive proof, works by counting your white blood cells. If you have HIV but not AIDS (Yet?) it will read negative. If you are feeling under the weather due to job stress and the flu, it will read positive. If you have lukemia, positive. If you have been exposed to radiation, positive. If you are taking certain herbal anti-fungal agents that supress the immune system, positive. In other words, it is all but useless.

      --
      ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
    101. Re:How sure? by megarich · · Score: 1
      Okay, so don't force him to submit for tests. But look at the bright side. Maybe karma will get him, even if HIV (turned AIDS) won't.

      Heh yea he'll likely die of cancer or some other disease which a person may of found a cure for but won't give it out.

      My opinion, yea it's his body and he can do whatever he wants and of course the doctors and scientists will push it too far(i.e a million doctors wanting to do a million tests) but I wouldn't think it would hurt to take a couple of tests. Find one trustworthy establishment dedicated to aids research, comply to some of their tests and be done with it. And if you really want to be a semi-scum about it charge them money but at least look at the thousands to possibly millions(sorry not familiar with AID stats) that could be potentially saved.

    102. Re:How sure? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reading the FA I see that he wanted to sue them for a false positive on the first test until they convinced him it wasn't false. It talks about feelings of depression after the diagnosis. Perhaps this guy is having some wild emotional swings related to all this (not to mention a sense of disbelief) and needs a bit of time to cope with all this. It's not every day that after you've adjusted to having an incurable deadly disease that affects every aspect of your life that someone comes along "Sorry, just kidding about that incurable part. Can we have some blood?". It's likely to knock you off kilter a bit.

    103. Re:How sure? by Elwood+P+Dowd · · Score: 1

      Maybe he doesn't want to follow in the footsteps of J.D. Shapely, the AIDS martyr.

      --

      There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
    104. Re:How sure? by crono_deus · · Score: 1
      At the meeting which my father wanted me at, he asked " since it's me you are testing on, what is the cut of the action I will get for each one sold" Honest questions ask jokingly. The reply was: you got to be kidding, we don't do such a thing.

      Very interesting. Most IRB-approved research actually takes into account reimbursement for time lost and also provides at least some method of sharing any success (were it to occur) with those who helped with the research.

      Do you recall if the consent form was IRB approved (big red stamp with the letters "IRB" at the bottom)?

      --
      Ne Cede Malis.
    105. Re:How sure? by Fafnir43 · · Score: 1

      So... He's both doing anything he can to help find a cure, and refusing to let the medical community run any more tests on him. So how does he think they'll be able to find a cure without testing him? Perhaps he believes doctors have psychic powers, but only reveal them at times of great need?

      --
      To know recursion, you must first know recursion.
    106. Re:How sure? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps the individual in question is in hiding until he can personally get world-wide patents on his genome ...

    107. Re:How sure? by AGMW · · Score: 1
      don't think his rights outweigh the lives of all the people who die of the disease yearly.

      So ... when do we start rounding people up for compulsory blood donations and testing to be put on the Bone Marrow Register then? Also, no question about not donating your body parts when you die.

      Yep, yours is certainly the World I want to live in!

      --
      Eclectic beats from Leeds, UK
      handmadehands.co.uk
    108. Re:How sure? by Professional+Heckler · · Score: 1

      Ask said researchers to pay you. I dont think anyone would disagree with that tactic. Sure you might be seen as ungrateful to the gift that you can give to mankind. However I think that in the end, at least from a utilitarian point of view, he should be examined
      I think its exciting, but I wouldnt get carried away by it
      Prof

    109. Re:How sure? by fabioaquotte · · Score: 1

      Right, and you believe that when they discover the cure it will be made available for everybody? That it won't be so ridiculously expensive that only the very rich will be able to get it?

      --
      Fabio Aquotte
    110. Re:How sure? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This argument does not hold water. The difference here is intent. I like how you called it an automobile collision instead of an accident. It almost makes your point seem valid. Most people do not drive their car and purposely attempt to have a collision. This is why they are called accidents.

      You cannot rape someone by accident.

    111. Re:How sure? by zardo · · Score: 1

      I agree with the grandparent, not the parent. If whats at stake is the lives of millions of Africans afflicted with AIDS I say strap him to a table, steal his damn blood, and kick him out the damn door. Damn ingrate of a human being.

    112. Re:How sure? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Why is he so afraid of helping out? Being in the history books as the person whose immune system helped solved HIV wouldn't be the worst thing in the world. Instead, he's out there thinking he's Darva Conger."

      Well maybe he's holding out for a book deal or a made for TV movie.

    113. Re:How sure? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's probably looking for a good patent attorney first. All he has to do is patent the antibodies that he created to combat HIV and he's set for life. Maybe he's planning a move to the US with it's eviler patent laws.

    114. Re:How sure? by zardo · · Score: 1

      I just talked this over with a friend, we think he is holding out for money. I surely would. $1,000,000 per mL.

    115. Re:How sure? by SquadBoy · · Score: 1

      Getting all your news from one spot and not checking things that seem *really* odd is a bad idea.

      There is clearly more to this story than the BBC is reporting. Granted this is likely an innocent mistake on their behalf, but still.

      http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&q=andrew%20stimp son&btnG=Google+Search&sa=N&tab=wn

      http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1871540, 00.html

      The other links off of there are rahter interesting to say the least.

      --

      Cypherpunks: Civil Liberty Through Complex Mathematics. Those who live by the sword die by the arrow.
    116. Re:How sure? by fakeplasticusername · · Score: 1

      Maybe I will.

      Maybe I'm just putting the idea out in a place where other people can read it, so they can join me. Perhaps that is a better use of my time, to put together a following so more people than just me can attack the problem.

    117. Re:How sure? by ivanmarsh · · Score: 1

      From what I've read about it he was retested twice after his initial test came back positive and tested positive all three times. There is a chance the recent negative test was false I suppose.

    118. Re:How sure? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, his name is Shapely. /obscure

    119. Re:How sure? by onepoint · · Score: 1

      I really can not recall, it's been 10 years or more. It's become a family joke that if we would have been paid, dad would be dead. But in the meantime, dad donates his blood for kids and he's happy. Last time he donated all he had to give was a few small vials ( I wish I really understood what he's got in his blood, but they need it all the time ).

      anyway thanks for asking, and sorry I could not help.

      Onepoint

      --
      if you see me, smile and say hello.
    120. Re:How sure? by AuMatar · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think we should be forced to donate body parts when you die. You're fucking dead, why should you care? In the meantime, someone or several someones might live because of it.

      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
    121. Re:How sure? by Skim123 · · Score: 1
      What if the test was wrong? Maybe he didn't have AIDS when first tested, or maybe the test didn't pick it up this time.

      More scarily, maybe the second test was wrong.

      And why is the guy afraid to be retested?

      Maybe this guy has these fears, that the second test was wrong, and would rather live in denial than go get a third test and find out that, "Whoops, you DO still have AIDS. Sorry bout getting you all excited."

      --

      I could not justify my existence if I were a turkey farmer. Would I terminate myself? Undoubtably, yes.

    122. Re:How sure? by HarvardAce · · Score: 1
      Their rights trump his, any day of the week.

      At least in the US, this is not the case (although with Bush it is becoming more and more so). The Bill of Rights was designed to protect the rights of one over the needs/rights of many. You can see this in many forms of the government.

      A good example is the criminal judicial system. The system is set up to prevent an innocent person from being found guilty, sometimes at the expense of a guilty person going free. In the minds of the Founding Fathers, it was more important to not falsely imprison one person than it was to let a few guilty people free.

      Perhaps the only contradiction to that principle in the Constitution is eminent domain, which has become an increasingly hot topic of recent months.

      --
      Note to self: Stop putting jokes in my insightful comments so I can get something other than +1 Funny!
    123. Re:How sure? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Is this what they mean when they say the GPL is "viral"?

    124. Re:How sure? by BalkanBoy · · Score: 1

      Not only that, but one has yet to prove that there is a causal relationship between HIV and AIDS. Search for virusmyth.com and Peter Duesberg.

      --
      'A lie if repeated often enough, becomes the truth.' - Goebbels
    125. Re:How sure? by mattspammail · · Score: 1

      Dear word parser,

      Gay community meaning that I don't know of a better way to say it in a politically correct manner. I don't mean like a gay township or neighborhood; I meant it in the traditional sense, and not derogitorially -- a collective grouping of gay people as a whole. In another article about this guy, he mentions having sex with his male partner, Juan. That pretty much clued me in to the gay part. Thus I included him as part of the gay community.

      --
      Now accepting PayPal donations!
    126. Re:How sure? by znaps · · Score: 1

      He's probably just waiting for that exact opportunity. Maybe nobody's offered him any cach yet. He's probably just waiting for someone like Bill G to call and say "Here's a million bucks to go do the tests".

    127. Re:How sure? by vertinox · · Score: 1

      As TFA said; he became depressed and suicidal when he got diagnosis.

      Maybe Quantumm immortality was involved... But I'd doubt it because we aren't observing the universe from his perspective.

      --
      "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
      -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
    128. Re:How sure? by binarybum · · Score: 1

      indeed, would really be a bummer to have to piss in a cup, have a couple of needles poked in your arm, and oh yeah, to possibly play a pivotal role in ending one of the greatest scourges of the modern world.

      --
      ôó
    129. Re:How sure? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I do believe that this is probably one of the few cases where I would say that I don't give a rats ass what kind of life this kid wants. If he actually did manage to cure himself of the disease then he owes the rest of humanity at least a chance at a cure.

    130. Re:How sure? by teromajusa · · Score: 2, Informative

      The most interesting thing about HIV tests is that they actually check for AIDS instead! The most common test, the one claimed to be false-positive proof, works by counting your white blood cells. If you have HIV but not AIDS (Yet?) it will read negative. If you are feeling under the weather due to job stress and the flu, it will read positive. If you have lukemia, positive. If you have been exposed to radiation, positive. If you are taking certain herbal anti-fungal agents that supress the immune system, positive. In other words, it is all but useless.

      It does sound all but useless, which makes me wonder whether you got the facts right. I did a quick google, and found this link, showing effectiveness of different tests. None of these look like simple white cell counts. Doesn't say anything about which is the most common, but this page from the FDA would seem to have all the common ones - note the one that was withdrawn because it was unreliable. So where did you see this information about using white blood cells?

    131. Re:How sure? by mcrbids · · Score: 1

      This guy isn't seeing the opportunity battering ram that's beating down his door. He could be SET FOR LIFE if he played his cards right. He's already NOT going to die a slow horrible from AIDS as was originally predicted. That should be good enough, but now he has the chance to also be a multi-gazillionaire and save thousands of people from dying in the process. How in the hell could you turn down an opportunity like that?!?!?

      Law of supply and demand - first you need a demand for something, and then that something needs to be sufficiently scarce so as to justify spending valuable resources on it.

      It may be that he's just working on the "scarcity" part.

      --
      I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
    132. Re:How sure? by sydb · · Score: 1

      This guy isn't seeing the opportunity battering ram that's beating down his door. He could be SET FOR LIFE if he played his cards right

      The guy DOES see the opportunity you idiot. That's why he's holding out for the best offer! If he just turned up and said "take my blood" then he's not going to get the best price for it. What the BBC article neglected to say is that he has publicly announced he DOES want to help, he just hasn't agreed yet. This from the Metro (a free newspaper, unfortunately the article is not on their web page.

      --
      Yours Sincerely, Michael.
    133. Re:How sure? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, the morality of altruism in action.

      Were it me, and I started hearing this utterly vile horseshit about moral obligations I did not specifically choose, I would refuse on that principle alone, and would continue to do so until my moral terms were met.

      A society that treats its individual members as sacrificial lambs, deserves to reap what it sows -- destruction. Grind this person into hamburger in the abattoir of "the public good" now, and the next ten guys simply keeps their mouth shut and take their invention, cure etc. to the grave. Totalitarian looters like you will be none the wiser.

      You want what I got? MOLON LABE.

    134. Re:How sure? by DrWho520 · · Score: 1

      In the US, willful inaction by first party that results in the death of second individual, when first knows knows inaction will cause second party's death is classified as Manslaughter. In this case, first party not submitting any form of assistance is negligence on the first party's part. I have no idea if there is a parallel to this in British law. He is still a bloody bastard if he refuses to provide assistance to the millions of people suffering in Africa (not the US, because everyone hates us now.) Oh, yeah, IANAL.

      --
      The cancel button is your friend. Do not hesitate to use it.
    135. Re:How sure? by toiletmonster · · Score: 1

      Its silly to ask people to do something thats not in their self interest. The solution is not to change human nature and make everyone into idealistic unselfish recycling yoga socialists. Real actual humans are motivated by self interest.

      If you want to change behavior, then change the incentives.

      If they want the HIV guy to submit to tests they should pay him.

      The red cross should be charging for blood.

      There are way too many people who die because they can't get an organ transplant. The reason there are no organs is there is no incentive for anyone to donate an organ not because there is an actual shortage of potential donors.

    136. Re:How sure? by HardCase · · Score: 1

      And why is the guy afraid to be retested?

      He's not.

    137. Re:How sure? by halepark · · Score: 1

      if i recognized him on the street, i'd piss in his eye.

      I heard that's the most common way to catch HIV.

    138. Re:How sure? by Cigarra · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I'll sacrifice YOUR life, but not that of myself or my family. Satisfied now?

      Exactly. That's what the government has to do in this case.

      --
      I don't have a sig.
    139. Re:How sure? by Koil · · Score: 1

      You sir, are an idiot...

      More appropriate to this conversation would be that you had designed a car that could possibly save the millions of people that die every year due to accidents, but refused to send it out to the masses because it would cause a major disruption in your life, for an indeterminable amount of time.

      If someone has HIV / AIDS, they just can't get rid of it...

      The fact that you would hold yourself above millions of lives tells more about you than I care to ever know.

    140. Re:How sure? by deaddrunk · · Score: 1

      If you believe everyone hates you, then don't you think it would be a good idea to find out why (and no it isn't jealousy) and to do something about it? Not that most people described as US haters hate every single American - merely the US overclass who actually deserve it.

      --
      Does a Christian soccer team even need a goalkeeper?
    141. Re:How sure? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "What's next? What else should be forced upon individuals because it's clearly in the best interest of humanity? Where are the limits? Anyone who doesn't think there are any, and that the need of humanity goes before the need of individuals have justified Dr Mengele and his research too."


      I think we could impose some pretty easy limits: Anything that will help millions of people and anything that won't harm the person or cause them unreasonable distress. I think its not too extreme to force someone to submit to a few tests for the benefit of millions of people who might otherwise die. The government takes people's property to build highways and now apparently shopping malls, is it so diffrent that he be required to lose some of his time and perhaps endure slight discomfort?
    142. Re:How sure? by karnal · · Score: 1

      So out of 100 people without HIV, at least 1 will yield a false positive.

      Actually, that's incorrect.

      You could still bat 1.000 and have the test be 99% or less accurate. It just wasn't inaccurate in that size of sample.

      --
      Karnal
    143. Re:How sure? by miskatonic+alumnus · · Score: 1

      See, that's what it comes down to. It's always the other guy who needs to devote his life/time/money/etc. to save the world. But not you, huh? It's a little too inconvenient to give up your addiction to automobiles, right? Why, I'll bet you haven't even donated any money to AIDS research or to AIDS victims.

    144. Re:How sure? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      His genetic material belongs to humanity.

    145. Re:How sure? by eMartin · · Score: 1

      "I would love to help people but I sure as hell wouldn't want to spend the rest of my life in front of doctors if I was in his position, I would rather continue a "normal" life (you know, normal, /. reading computer geek)"

      Wow. If you were dying, and then given a second chance to live and possibly help millions of others do the same by offering some of your remaining healthy years to research, you would instead waste it reading Slashdot?

    146. Re:How sure? by Koil · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It has nothing to do with the fact that _I_ haven't done any of these things (which isn't true, but nice assumption).

      I am not the one with the Golden Ticket. I am not the one holding the key to MILLIONS of peoples lives in the palm of my hands. This guy does, and is possibly capable of helping people on a level that no one has probably ever known. If I held what he had...I would do it in a heartbeat.

      I understand that it could possibly disrupt his life for the entirety of it. I understand that things will never be the same for this guy, and to a degree it could be a bad thing, but if he were to approach this from the right angle, and make the right choices, his life, while busy...would be completely set.

      He would never want for another thing in his entire life. The people that say that they wouldn't release their blood/whatever to the world unless they were guaranteed X% of profits make me sick as well. The right thing to do would be to make sure that you made it very publicly known that you were releasing your blood for analysis and that you don't want any one company to be able to take this and prosper, possibly strangling a market or making it in any shape, form, or fashion, difficult for people who need this, to obtain it. The companies would still make their normal money, they just wouldn't be able to charge a massive premium since they held the cure.

      The other things that this guy would be wise to do, would be to make sure that all of the decisions he makes are "without evil". I think that there can definitely be a happy medium between him making himself available for testing, and then being able to take time out for himself. This could become his job from now on.

      He holds the ticket, so he could call the shots...its just a matter of how he decides to play the game. As a human, or an asshole...

    147. Re:How sure? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Perhaps the guy just wants to lead a normal life now. He should be in his full right to choose so, and no one has the right to claim that he must do anything -- it's his life and his choices. He doesn't owe HIV infected people or "humanity" any damn thing.

      If he has ever received the benefit of modern medicine he should be required to assist. After all, he wouldn't be here at all without it...

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    148. Re:How sure? by kingjosh · · Score: 1

      I'm sure he'll look back and remember that he may have held the cure for the world's deadliest disease and didn't share it, can't imagine that feeling is very normal. Given the press coverage already already received, this will guarantee he's more hated than Jack Thompson!

    149. Re:How sure? by unDees · · Score: 1
      And saying that you'd release your program under GPL is not an option, as this option doesn't exist in the medical world.

      Well, something analogous does....

      --
      "I call a baby goat a 'goatse.'" -- my non-Internet-savvy 6-year-old stepdaughter
    150. Re:How sure? by SeaFox · · Score: 1

      Why? because he doesn't want to be a lab rat? Because he doesn't want some drug company patenting his genes? Because he doesn't want anybody turning a profit on his immune system?

      He should turn the tables on them. Agree to work with them on finding the reason he is cured now but get a contract requiring a share of any profits from drugs made based on the research, or requiring that the results of the companies research be released to other drug comapanies and the public.

    151. Re:How sure? by sjames · · Score: 1

      Many medical tests are like that. For really important things like AIDS, multiple different tests are recommended.

      Another area where it comes into play is drug testing. The inexpensive screening test rarely has a false negative, but is known to have false positives. The CORRECT procedure is to followup positive screens with a more expensive but reliable test for a final determination, but people have been fired based on the screening test alone. At least one (a nurse) then demonstrated that poppy seed bagals can cause a false posative on an opium screen. Surely a hospital (her employer) should have known better than to destroy someone's career on the strength of a screening test alone, but that might cost money!.

      This is why there is resistance to OTC home AIDS tests, fear that people will either assume a single negative (the morning after a drunken episode for example) is valid, and also fear that a positive will not be followed up with a more accurate test.

    152. Re:How sure? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Why is he so afraid of helping out?"

      Why are you? You give blood as much as you can? You using that liver fully? Donate a lung, a kidney? Have your immuno profile on record for bone marrow transplants? Do biological research in the field?(scratch that, we don't want a mind like yours in our field) Give all your disposable income to research?

      If not, you're a damn hypocrite. Lots of stuff you could do but you don't. Pathetic ass.

      Maybe he's reluctant because the medical community and his privacy seems to have gone to shit when he went in to get tested himself, which he likely did to protect himself and future partners.

      Hell, just look at your own response when YOU didn't get what you wanted from HIM. Similarly, maybe those health care workers haven't dangled the carrot correctly, making him feel like he's being violated instead of helping out--not something you'd do, of course *cough*.

      Further and first, he states he would help out. He stipulates he doesn't want to be tested again. One does not exclude the other. No one explored the nature or depth of his reasoning, just painted him as a shithole. Second, those speaking with him probably did not explain to him fully what is at stake along with not asking him completely his underlying reasons. It might be as simple as he's afraid further testing may somehow reactivate the virus; in which case if it were true, the testing would be responsible for his death--as preposterous as this sounds, they don't know why he was "cured" either. Or he may be afraid that his privacy may be further degraded. Or that he doesn't realize how rare his situation really is. Or doesn't really believe he can help out. Don't assume that because YOU know that the patient knows. You also don't know who exactly has spoken with him. Maybe some lackey made a half-ass pass at getting him in to get further tested, and this story simply passed up the chain as people passed the buck as why he won't come back that he's now stuck in a hole on his primary decision. Third, those requesting further testing probably didn't pony up something appropriate, like royalties or free medical care if he does end up getting AIDS. Maybe he's responsible for someone else's care (economically and/or actually) in which further time taken from testing would undermine someone else's quality of life whom he cares about. You DO NOT know his situation in full but somehow assumed you do (oh, and that makes you the ass).

      His one small step to gain medical information to protect himself and perhaps those close to him has turned into a fiasco where people on /. are name-calling him and putting forward value judgments. You expect him to return to that system?

      iow, his previous interaction with the medical/health community and the media at large will have already turned his life into shit.

    153. Re:How sure? by bkr1_2k · · Score: 1

      According to the article:
      "He has told the papers he would do anything he could to help find a cure."

      His first instinct was to sue, and he declines to help by letting researchers do some tests on his blood (presumably) but he "would do anything he could to help." Sounds like he'll do anything he can as long he profits from it. Dick. Plain and simple, he's either a fraud or a dick. Putting his own well-being above that of millions is perhaps the most selfish dick-headed move I've heard about.

      bkr

      --
      "Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
    154. Re:How sure? by susa-no-o · · Score: 1

      This is modded funny, but I don't think it is. In all seriousness, I would be doing the exact same thing.

    155. Re:How sure? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure that there have been other very rare cases of the disease being cured through immune system responses in asia. It was on the news several years ago.

      I guess this is news because it's the first white person whose genome is most similar to the ruling class.

    156. Re:How sure? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or instead of making a judgement (which is difficult for me,... i.e., I often leap to judging -- i love imagining i know what's right), we might maintain a scientific curiosity as to why he's chosen to do this. Not just what he says, but is there any other reason one might imagine that a person might not wish to give.

      That said,... I hope I'd be willing to share my good luck with others. I believe this is what you're speaking to,... but I'd hate to judge you prematurely.

      regards

    157. Re:How sure? by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      I saw this on the news yesterday. They already confirmed that he's negative, and they did DNA tests to make sure none of the results were mixed up. Next they're going to run the initial positive-testing sample again to make sure.

      Even so, I'm going to reserve judgement on this for a while. That whole extraordinary claims, extraordinary proof thing. I'm not a doctor, but I believe the test for HIV only tests for antibodies, since the virus itself is much more difficult. Even so, I would believe a false positive or sample tampering more readily than someone's body developing a cure, if only because the former seem far more likely possibilities than the latter.

    158. Re:How sure? by rufty_tufty · · Score: 1

      Wasn't meaning to word parse, just limited lunchtime being the issue here :-)

      The other issue being I was assuming someone was making the automatic link between AIDS and gay - and I dislike assumptions like that (so I made a similarly incorrect one myself - sorry!)

      --
      "The weirdest thing about a mind, is that every answer that you find, is the basis of a brand new cliche" -
    159. Re:How sure? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree with you! Just give yourself to some massive pharma company is stupid. If a company is able to find a cure, it will make a huge amount of money because I doubt that they will give the result away for free! You helped them to get there so you should also get payed ... a lot!

    160. Re:How sure? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, that's fine. He doesn't HAVE to spend 3 minutes giving a vial of blood to help mankind...

      ...but I got me this baseball bat here. Gimme his name, and I'LL be more then happy to act on mankind's behalf and get a few pints.

    161. Re:How sure? by StarKruzr · · Score: 1

      Fine. Then this is very simple. Offer the guy progressively larger amounts of money until he accepts. Everyone has a price - especially for something that will ultimately have no effect on their lives whatsoever.

      --

      +++ATH0
    162. Re:How sure? by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      He told the Mail on Sunday: "I can't help wondering if I hold the cure for Aids. There are 34.9 million people with HIV and if I have something to contribute, then I am willing and ready to help."

    163. Re:How sure? by RubberChainsaw · · Score: 1

      If he has ever received the benefit of modern medicine he should be required to assist.

      If he received the benefit of modern medicine then, yes, he should provide compensation for those benefits. Fortunately for him that compensation was probably in the form of money paid by either himself, his insurance carrier or the charity of his regional government health care. He paid for his treatments and is not in debt to society for anything.

      --
      I welcome our new 99% overlords.
    164. Re:How sure? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Modern medicine cannot exist without society, meaning population. You need a certain population to have significant technological advances. No one stands alone, regardless of what they believe.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    165. Re:How sure? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but this guy isn't going to die ...everybody dies...

      and the 1000 people aren't neccesarily going to be saved ...but they might be, and that's the point. Plus, it's a lot more than 1,000.

      Here's hoping you're not one of them, then you don't have to worry about it.

    166. Re:How sure? by Novous · · Score: 1

      >Oh I agree. The second the sick become cured they should have their liberties and freedom to make choices about what they do with their body be taken away.

      Oh I agree. The millions of people it could save aren't with a few drops of blood. Those needles are really sharp! Golly! Surely someone can't be expected to be moderately inconviened for the sake of millions. That would be wrong.

    167. Re:How sure? by etheriel · · Score: 1

      nothing belongs to anything. possession is a completely artifical idea.

    168. Re:How sure? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I totally agree asking money for something like that.
      Why does Sammy Sosa get paid loads, why does Madonna make millions?
      Because they are gifted (arguably) with something that makes them
      stand out from most people.

      If this guy is gifted by nature to have a superior immune system,
      then why would he not reap the benefits from this (beyond the
      benefit of being cured).

    169. Re:How sure? by mattspammail · · Score: 1

      And I unfairly labeled you a word parser too. Hope lunch was all that and a bag of Cheetos. Cheers!

      --
      Now accepting PayPal donations!
    170. Re:How sure? by vspazv · · Score: 1

      As long as their patents werent submitted 25 years ago he could claim himself as prior art.

    171. Re:How sure? by buck_wild · · Score: 1

      "Perhaps he believes doctors have psychic powers, but only reveal them at times of great need?"

      That rocked. Hahaha!

      --
      If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
    172. Re:How sure? by Papi99 · · Score: 1

      Well, scientifically, the term HIV was made up by the US government at the time AIDS started developing. They constructed a list of symptoms that would say whether or not you have "HIV" or "AIDS." What it really comes down to in the end, you have AIDS all together. It's just that the symptoms you exhibit aren't all on someone's list that says it's serious enough to be AIDS, so they'll just call it HIV, with the idea of giving people some sort of hope or optimism hoping they can stop some sort of virus. HIV doesn't mean that you're getting AIDS. It means that you have a milder form of AIDS.

    173. Re:How sure? by buck_wild · · Score: 1

      Ok, now what if you could save a 1000 lives without sacrificing ANY lives, just SOME of your free time and plasma?

      Any reasons, other than you're not REQUIRED to, for NOT doing that little bit to help others?

      I mean, this guy tested positive, so he knows firsthand how traumatic it can feel. I wonder what's going through his head where he will allow ANYone else to go through that.

      But I do not, in any way, think he should be required.

      --
      If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
    174. Re:How sure? by buck_wild · · Score: 1

      My wife would disagree, based on her sysopsis of what would happen if I ever cheat on her. I happen to LIKE those pieces of my anatomy, thankyouverymuch.

      --
      If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
    175. Re:How sure? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hardly. If he provides a means to develop a cure, some BigPharma company will patent it and make money off of it. If there is something in his DNA which allowed his body to fight off the infection, his genes would actually be patented by BigPharma. It sounds as though he doesn't intend to procreate, which would be a good thing, because passing those genes to his offspring would constitute a patent violation.

    176. Re:How sure? by casperke · · Score: 1

      It wouldn't surprise me if this guy has just conflicting tests.

      As I stated on another forum, at best HIV tests are 99.6% accurate. That means for every 1000 tests there are 4 errornous tests. At that rate there are hundreds of these situations per year. To my knowledge I have never heard of a lab that maintains perfect protocols for using these test. That would cause this situation to become quite common.

      Hell, I can name a few people I've talked with that have had HIV positive and HIV negative tests. That anyone would think a cure could come from this is wishful thinking at best.

    177. Re:How sure? by Wolfier · · Score: 1

      Exactly.

      Especially if he could have made history and (as a side effect) fame/fortune due to that.

      It'd be not only selfish, but actually stupid not to help.

    178. Re:How sure? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That anyone would think a cure could come from this is wishful thinking at best.

      That's all HIV/AIDs patients have really....

    179. Re:How sure? by somersault · · Score: 1

      I didnt see anything in the BBC article about not letting them retest him - maybe he didnt want another test to see if he's HIV+ but will let them draw some blood and do with it what they wish. I know he sounds pretty stupid but it *does* say that he will cooperate, and I'm more inclined to believe BBC news reports than american ones ;)

      --
      which is totally what she said
    180. Re:How sure? by RockModeNick · · Score: 1

      False positives definately happen, thats why I'm not sure why they are making such a big deal out of this. It mostly seems like they just can't confirm that there was some earlier mistake because they can't get any more testing done.

    181. Re:How sure? by tabrnaker · · Score: 1

      genetics doesn't mean unchangeable. Where do people get that notion? Genes are our software, variables can be changed and snippets of code can be replaced. It happens all the time, it's called life.

    182. Re:How sure? by Pranadevil2k · · Score: 1

      Hold on a second...

      "Given the odds of a botched test vs the odds of fighting off the AIDS virus he can easily enough be forgiven for assuming the first test was screwed up"

      What about the odds of the second test being botched?

    183. Re:How sure? by syukton · · Score: 1
      How in the hell could you turn down an opportunity like that?!?!?


      By saying "No, thanks."
      --
      Reinvent the wheel only at either a lower cost, greater effectiveness, or your own personal enrichment and satisfaction.
    184. Re:How sure? by sjames · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What about the odds of the second test being botched?

      I'd guess a layman would still consider those odds to be better than the odds of fighting off AIDS. Lets face it, assuming a paper is presented on this, it WILL cause controversy and require extraordinary proof (including likely re-re testing of the original samples if still available) before it will be accepted by experts in the field. Here we have a medical layman who probably has no specialized knowledge of testing procedures and how they can and cannot go wrong who has just discovered that 14 months of wondering how few years he has left and how sick he will be for those years was all unnecessary (apparently) and you expect him to draw appropriate scientific conclusions?

      In addition, it may be a very good thing he did initially bring suit since that's what caused them to go back and look again, ultimatly concluding that he is the one known case of a spontaineous cure for AIDS. Had he just celebrated quietly and said nothing more, we might have never known.

    185. Re:How sure? by Listen+Up · · Score: 1

      Wow, talk about Intro to Philosophy 101. Not the brightest bulb in the box, are you?

      Arguing words and meanings instead of the reality which they represent is pointless. Possession and ownership of something, whether it is just a mental construct of our existence, is a basic part of life for all higher level organisms. For all purposes it is just as real as living and breathing. Ever seen a beer scratching a tree or a dog peeing on a fire hydrant? Ever observe that socialism fails?

      All parts of higher level existence such as competition, possession, ownership, value, etc. are as real as the terms used to represent them. It is all part of existence which is part of what makes our universe such an interesting place.

  2. First test by KiroDude · · Score: 2, Interesting

    And who can guarantee the first tests he made were REALLY positive?

    1. Re:First test by famebait · · Score: 1

      There's this thing called antibodies. If you have them, you have been exposed to infection. If you don't, you have either never had it, or you have no immune response to it and would probably get very sick quite quickly.

      --
      sudo ergo sum
  3. Refused? by Carthag · · Score: 5, Informative

    I don't know where you get this, I saw an interview with him last night on TV, and he said he wanted to help other people, and that he was cooperating with scientists to figure out what caused the virus to disappear.

    1. Re:Refused? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the bbc article reports him as having refused. seems likely he just wants to find a different place to be tested at

    2. Re:Refused? by Redwin · · Score: 2, Informative

      I don't know where you get this, I saw an interview with him last night on TV

      From TFA:

      A statement from the trust said: "This is a rare and complex case. When we became aware of Mr Stimpson's HIV negative test results we offered him further tests to help us investigate and find an explanation for the different results.

      "So far Mr Stimpson has declined this offer."

      A trust spokeswoman added: "We urge him, for the sake of himself and the HIV community, to come in and get tested.

      --
      Warning, comments may not have been passed by the sanity department of my brain.
    3. Re:Refused? by joey_knisch · · Score: 1

      Ohhhh..... and I was just about to start screaming for an involuntary blood, organ, and tissue harvest.

      Oh well... there is always next year.

    4. Re:Refused? by tom+taylor · · Score: 1

      I agree, he was on BBC News last night or the night before, saying how much he wanted to help!

    5. Re:Refused? by Pieroxy · · Score: 4, Informative

      This is slashdot. It's not about accuracy.

    6. Re:Refused? by stevelinton · · Score: 1

      It does seem that he says he wants to help in public, but thers is some specific problem with him cooperating with the actual tests that at least some actual doctors want to do.

    7. Re:Refused? by KazenoKoe · · Score: 1

      From TFA: "He has told the papers he would do anything he could to help find a cure." The article itself also supports that, and doesn't at the same time...

    8. Re:Refused? by Marcus+Green · · Score: 1

      According to the times online

      Man 'cured' of HIV agrees to undergo further clinical tests see

      http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1871540, 00.html

    9. Re:Refused? by FooBarBlatDing · · Score: 5, Funny

      He's waiting to patent his genes first.

    10. Re:Refused? by ItsIllak · · Score: 1

      They got this from the reports coming from the hospital in which the test were done. THEY were reporting that he wasn't accepting any more test. I guess his live has taken a turn for the bizarre since this became news.

      BTW, this angle was reported on both Sky News and BBC News.

    11. Re:Refused? by vectra14 · · Score: 1

      Of course, n00b. Slashdot is about precision.

    12. Re:Refused? by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, check out his line: "A 25 yr old British man could be the first people[...]"

    13. Re:Refused? by erroneus · · Score: 4, Interesting

      As funny as that may sound, THAT may be exactly what he should be doing. Forget about "scientists" studying him, he should be signing up with some pharmaceutical company and reap some MAJOR benefits from it. I'd want to set up some sort of contract to allow testing of specific types requiring some VERY high payment and THEN to own the patent on whatever drugs they come up with.

      It's a pretty amazing opportunity if you think about it.

    14. Re:Refused? by aggressor-on · · Score: 1

      And go the way of Levis?

    15. Re:Refused? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did he say anything about seeing Magic Johnson's doctors?
      Seems he may not be the first to be 'cured' of HIV.

    16. Re:Refused? by quibbs0 · · Score: 1
      He's waiting to patent his genes first.

      I heard Google and Amazon have both approached him with offers already. "The One-Click HIV Removal" Patent is underway.

    17. Re:Refused? by Viper+Daimao · · Score: 1

      Does this mean slashdot editors are writing for the BBC now?

      --
      "In the game of life, someone always has to lose. To me, if life were fair, that someone would always be Oklahoma." -DKR
    18. Re:Refused? by Shaper_pmp · · Score: 1

      Congratulations on being an amoral capitalist scumbag.

      Personally I'd only co-operate if I was given a cast-iron guarantee that any patents arising from it were donated free of charge to the WHO (or similar), and made available for free licencing to anyone who wanted to manufacture the drug.

      It's about curing an incurable plague and helping save millions of lives a year, not about getting rich.

      --
      Everything in moderation, including moderation itself
    19. Re:Refused? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      > Of course, n00b. Slashdot is about precision

      As if. So far the only safe thing is depicted in this educational video (32 MB). Oh and if you believe this video is safe for work I would like to know where you work.

      Whoa! The word to type in was "repress".

    20. Re:Refused? by FooBarBlatDing · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I wasn't intending to be funny, actually, I was musing that perhaps that's exactly what he is doing.

      More to the point, he may be afraid that if he goes in for more tests that's what *they* will do. If I were in the situation I would be working to make sure that nobody could be stealing this "opportunity" in this way, rather that it become available to everyone without such encumbrances.

      The easiest way to do that is to pursue the patent yourself (after all, you should own your own genes, one might think) and donate the patent.

    21. Re:Refused? by erroneus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Uh, if he owns the patent, it means he can control the destiny of the patent with his conscience, singularly and directly.

      Even if some people in the pharmaceutical industry WANTED to act with their conscience, they cannot. They have to act in ways that benefits the shareholders... in ways geared to profits. To act any other way would likely end their careers. But as an individual owning patents on significant drugs, he can act in any way he wants. Further, just because they study his genes and body chemistry, there is no guarantee they would be able to come up with a solution that will work for all humans... but if he had a bunch of money from them trying, again, he could do anything for anyone he pleases.

      My angle was using the opportunity to take back from the pharmaceutical industry... to give them a bit of what they've been giving the world.

    22. Re:Refused? by umbrellasd · · Score: 1

      The problem is that most people only read half of the words in every sentence. Not that this is a problem for them.

    23. Re:Refused? by Dr.+Evil · · Score: 1

      Also in the article:

      "He has told the papers he would do anything he could to help find a cure."

      The article is quite strange. Reading between the lines... he's gone from suicidal to modern miracle... I think he might be confused.

    24. Re:Refused? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yah, well there are some people who realize there are more important things than money. Maybe if you get AIDS one day you'll realize it too. Otherwise, good luck with your money-grubbing mentality.

    25. Re:Refused? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a pretty amazing opportunity if you think about it.

      Yes, an amazing opportunity for one man to be able to hold a possible cure for HIV hostage from the entire world. This is like some reductio ad absurdum argument against patents...

    26. Re:Refused? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. It's ALL about getting rich, and saving lives (I guess.) And, any generous donations should be directed (with a stainless steele guarantee) to the ROLLING STONES.

      Troll? You betcha!

    27. Re:Refused? by Shaper_pmp · · Score: 1

      My apologies - it didn't look at all like that was what you meant.

      All the talk about "Forget[ting] about "scientists" studying him", "signing up with some pharmaceutical company", "reap[ing] some MAJOR benefits" and "requiring some VERY high payment" kind of overshadowed the (implied) bit at the bottom about "THEN to own the patent on whatever drugs they come up with"... ;-)

      --
      Everything in moderation, including moderation itself
  4. Infect Him Again by ibemonty2000 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Lets infect him again and see if he can go 2 for 2. -Monty

    1. Re:Infect Him Again by Hina+Matsuri · · Score: 1

      I'm no doctor, but couldn't you just take some samples of all his fluids and intoduce it to each of them?

    2. Re:Infect Him Again by rkww · · Score: 5, Informative
      He's already tried. According to the NotW Mr Stimpson said, "I'd read the research, I knew it had never happened before. I didn't understand how I could be negative after one year especially because I had been having unprotected sex with my [infected] partner after the diagnosis, believing we had nothing to lose."

      He was going in for repeat tests every two months, so his status is well documented.

    3. Re:Infect Him Again by arivanov · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well... Obvious question is "Which test?".

      If it is bog standard ELISA it does not actually detect HIV. It detects antibodies produced against it. So if you do not have any immune responce to HIV whatsoever you will return a negative result.

      There are other tests of course which are based on amplifying DNA off the original virus RNA template. Most of these are alpha quality and they are not done as a part of the normal testing procedure.

      So the obvious question here is - what tests did he undergo.

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    4. Re:Infect Him Again by Errtu76 · · Score: 2, Funny

      so actually, the cure is to have more sex!

    5. Re:Infect Him Again by Senjutsu · · Score: 4, Informative

      Well, it says that after he got the negative result, he sued the hospital for fucking up the first time and making him think he had AIDS. The article goes on to say "The results came back negative and Mr Stimpson began legal action against the trust, convinced there had been a mistake with the original diagnosis. But an extensive investigation, including DNA testing on his blood samples, has confirmed all the results". I'm not sure if that means "DNA testing to confirm both samples were his" or "DNA testing for vDNA pairs produced by the RNA transcription of the virus".

    6. Re:Infect Him Again by Trogre · · Score: 1

      Your comment would be funny if so many didn't believe it to be true.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    7. Re:Infect Him Again by moro_666 · · Score: 2

      I'm no doctor either, but this is really interesting:


      Experts think he could have something in his immune system that may help in producing vaccines against HIV


      as far as i know a vaccine is actually a little piece of the infection itself and some antibodys to fight it (which sometimes are even derivated from the same virus), so the human body is infected with both so it's immune system can skip the invention of antibodies and just massively reproduce them to fight this little tiny infection that came along, so that the human body will be filled with enormous amount of antibodies in notime ...

      so now, how can experts say that someone is producing a vaccine if vaccine is just a codename for a fixture ? and how can experts say that he is healed by the vaccine if vaccine is actually only good to prevent from getting ill at all, whereas other medicaments are meant for healing the ill. infecting a flu infected people with vaccine, can make his/her situation even worse than it was before the infecting. i hope i will not be cured by those experts that gave their oppinion in the referring sources .....

      --

      I'd tell you the chances of this story being a dupe, but you wouldn't like it.
    8. Re:Infect Him Again by NickFitz · · Score: 2, Informative

      As the sentence you point out is not a direct quote, it's not what these unspecified "experts" said; it's what the journalist thought they meant. Even at the BBC science journalism isn't necessarily written by people who properly understand the subject under discussion. See Guardian science writer Ben Goldacre's critique of science reporting in the media to get an idea of how this kind of meaningless story comes about:

      Scientists never said that tenuous small new findings were important headline news - journalists did.

      --
      Using HTML in email is like putting sound effects on your phone calls. Just say <strong>no</strong>.
    9. Re:Infect Him Again by trentblase · · Score: 1

      Umm, it doesn't say that he was healed by a vaccine. It says he has something in his immune system which may help produce a vaccine. As you mentioned, vaccines are made from antibodies... if his immune system erradicated the HIV, then his blood has the antibodies they need to create a vaccine. I see no logical fault here.

    10. Re:Infect Him Again by aussie_a · · Score: 1

      But in a way, constantly reinfecting himself may have helped his body fight against it. Who knows. I'm no scientist. I think anything up to and including "an act of god" could be the reason he was cured. If more research is ever done, then we can get a definite answer.

    11. Re:Infect Him Again by Warshadow · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The article is sort of vague on that. They say:
      "Every two months he was going for blood tests and checks on his liver, heart and immune system."

      Blood tests doesn't mean HIV tests. Especially sinde they follow up with:
      "So in October 2003 he was offered a repeat HIV test -- and the result came back negative."

      That makes it sound as if that was his first HIV test since he tested positive.

      Given that he continued to have intercourse with his partner who was known to be infected (maybe he should be rechecked too if they went to the same clinic!) then I'd guess he really did have it and just might have beaten it in some way.

      Regardless it was bound to happen. There are always people who are immune (or their immune system is better equipped to fight) any given disease, virus, etc.

    12. Re:Infect Him Again by RobbieGee · · Score: 5, Interesting
      Well, it says that after he got the negative result, he sued the hospital for fucking up the first time and making him think he had AIDS.
      I'm not surprised. If it is/were true, the hospital exposed him to the risk of actually getting infected since he thought he had nothing to loose.
      --
      If you get this, we're 10 of a kind.
    13. Re:Infect Him Again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and remember it has to be GAY sex!

    14. Re:Infect Him Again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      actually a small portion (~10%) of the population is immune naturally, the thing about them is that they cannot get infected. They have an altered cd4 gene and the virus cannot enter the t-cell to infect it. This is different in that he was "allegedly" infected and then recovered. So if this is true then this is really significant. Of course this is not publicised because we do not want too many people thinking they might be immune and thus being fuoolish and spreading the virus further through unprotected sex. Also your chances of getting HIV in a single act of intercourse are not all that great either.

    15. Re:Infect Him Again by odourpreventer · · Score: 1

      No, serums are made from antibodies. A vaccine is basically a miniscule infection. To small to cause any harm, but large enough to induce antibody production.

    16. Re:Infect Him Again by rAiNsT0rm · · Score: 0, Troll

      Gays are good for something after all, not just hair/makeup/makeover shows on TV! Get back to your ass-pounding and fix up some other deadly infectious diseases.

      --
      http://teasphere.wordpress.com - A little spot of tea
    17. Re:Infect Him Again by Flaming+Babies · · Score: 1

      Wow...that is disturbing...

      --
      The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously.
    18. Re:Infect Him Again by trentblase · · Score: 1

      Ah, thanks for the correction -- I was mostly just applying a logical analysis to his initial assumptions (that vaccines are made from antibodies) and pointing out that the conclusion would be consistent with the quote. I really should have checked those initial assumptions myself... now I know, and knowing is half the battle. GO JOE!

    19. Re:Infect Him Again by David+Horn · · Score: 1

      Monty - funniest comment I've read in ages. Keep 'em coming!

      --
      PocketGamer.org - For the gamer on the go!
    20. Re:Infect Him Again by saskboy · · Score: 1

      Trevis Smith, the football player charged with having unprotected sex while HIV positive will be delighted to hear that.

      --
      Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
    21. Re:Infect Him Again by l0b0 · · Score: 1

      Candidate for "Unbreakable II, the reality TV series", anyone?

    22. Re:Infect Him Again by Provocateur · · Score: 1

      Maybe the tests were just a ruse? Y'know, to get his partner to say 'yes', despite everything?

      --
      WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
    23. Re:Infect Him Again by mikvo · · Score: 1

      Well, that clears up one point: the cure isn't spread the same way as the disease...

    24. Re:Infect Him Again by thuh+Freak · · Score: 1

      *sounds of thousands of /. devotees screaming in enjoyment*
      followed by their distraught moans, realizing they'll never get any.

      --
      I wish that I was a catfish.
    25. Re:Infect Him Again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe this is the key. Start having unprotected sex with a lot of HIV infected persons and maybe the different strands of the virus start killing each other. Divide et impera!

    26. Re:Infect Him Again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's stupid of him. HIV mutates within individuals and it's not unexpected that different strains passed on may accelerate the collapse of someone else's immune system even if they are already infected.

      If you have HIV and have an HIV infected partner, you should still be using condoms and dams. I believe this is common advice if you have a good doctor or receive appropriate counseling after a positive test, given I've read articles involving HIV infected couples trying to have children were considered having a slight increase in risk of getting AIDS (note that while HIV usually receives to AIDS, HIV infected is not quite the same as having AIDS) due to transfer of a different HIV variety.

  5. Patent... by xyvimur · · Score: 4, Funny

    Maybe he should patent himself, his DNA and other things ;)

    1. Re:Patent... by Jerry+Talton · · Score: 1

      You should read Nancy Kress' Patent Infringement from the May 2002 edition of Asimov's. Science Fiction is all too often predictive of real life...

    2. Re:Patent... by Inaffect · · Score: 1

      I, for one, welcome our new DNA-patented, HIV-immune overlords.

    3. Re:Patent... by NewWorldDan · · Score: 0

      No can do. First of all, he's not the inventor, that would be his parents. Secondly, after 25 years of being made available to the public, it's far too late to get a patent. Otherwise, it would be a very good idea. Now, if he could find the specific gene involved, he might have something to work with. In fact, if I were him, I'd be demanding a cut of any medications, vaccines or treatments arising from the study of him. And I'd make sure that was gross, not net. Net is for suckers.

    4. Re:Patent... by fanblade · · Score: 1

      He can't patent his DNA sequence -- I have at least 90% prior art!

  6. Hmmm... by Isosceles+Triangle · · Score: 2, Funny

    Does this guy also have a skeleton laced with Adamantium...?

    1. Re:Hmmm... by alragh · · Score: 1

      Not yet...

    2. Re:Hmmm... by chrismcdirty · · Score: 1

      As we all know, that's what happens after the experimentation. Maybe that's why he's so reluctant to undergo further testing.

      --
      It's like sex, except I'm having it!
  7. "Refused" is wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "He has told the papers he would do anything he could to help find a cure."

    He has said he will absolutely do everything he can to try and explain this, but I guess after preparing for death and then being told that you're going to live, you don't want to go back into hospital and be tested for the next 3 years right away.

    1. Re:"Refused" is wrong by ContemporaryInsanity · · Score: 2, Insightful

      News just in, he's *still* going to die...

  8. Most likely explanation by Zog+The+Undeniable · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Occam's Razor suggests that the original tests were wrong. I know he had multiple tests, but they're not 100% accurate.

    There's something fishy about the way this story is being stage managed by the News Of The World (a notoriously downmarket and sensationalist paper). I predict an expose and retraction within the week.

    --
    When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
    1. Re:Most likely explanation by venicebeach · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Occam's Razor suggests that the original tests were wrong

      The simplest solution is not always the correct one. In this case, since the potential benefits are so great, it seems worth looking into the possibility that he beat the disease.

    2. Re:Most likely explanation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The News of the World might be "down market" and sensationalist, but it has journalists who are just as good as other newspapers. Don't confuse sensationalist information with poor journalism, just because you don't like its tone.

      Perhaps you can quote a few recent examples where the NoW has been incorrect?

    3. Re:Most likely explanation by Llywelyn · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Occam's Razor simply indicates which possibility is the *most likely* to be correct. It could have a probability of 1.5% when the next most likely outcome, which is more complicated, is at 1.49%. Further, it assumes that *everything else is equal*. If there were multiple tests, what percentage accuracy do you want across those tests before something else occurring becomes a more probable solution?

      Yes, there is a chance that the original test was wrong, but there's also a chance of a true remission. Without more information than what was contained in the article, its hard to tell which is which, and it certainly warrants further tests.

      --
      Integrate Keynote and LaTeX
    4. Re:Most likely explanation by mykdavies · · Score: 1
      --
      The world has changed and we all have become metal men.
    5. Re:Most likely explanation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the US, we don't talk about the Spice Girls, think about the Spice Girls, wonder about the Spice Girls, care about the Spice Girls. Now, what do you have to say about that, Brit boy?

    6. Re:Most likely explanation by hhghghghh · · Score: 1, Informative

      Either the first batch of tests were all false positives, or the later batch were all false negatives. The likelihood of non-remission is equal to the FP-rate**number of prior tests or FN-rate**number of later tests, whichever is greater. Seeing as how you'd really want to make sure about the later testing, and how tests will have improved over time, it's probably the FP-rate**number of prior tests which is the greater probability. The likelihood of remission is equal to the inverse of this (1-p). Since remission to the point of not being sero-positive anymore is unheard of (your body would have need to have gotten rid not only of the infection, but of the antibodies it created, which is what the serum contains - and these antibodies is what your body pretty much is honed to keep duplicating; this is besides no prior recorded instances of HIV remission), let's put this at a million to one likelihood. Which is still pretty good, better odds of getting cured of aids than winning the lottery. Let's say he took 5 tests (which is a lot). Let's say the FP rate is a measly 10% (FP/NP rates for clinical tests are usually 15%, and then there's the usual hospital mixups etc.). That puts non-remission at 100.000 to one. Still an order of magnitude likelier than remission. This is disregarding the source of the news, which has lower than one in ten odds of being correct anyway.

    7. Re:Most likely explanation by igb · · Score: 4, Informative
      Perhaps you can quote a few recent examples where the NoW has been incorrect?
    8. Re:Most likely explanation by Mazem · · Score: 1

      So, first, that is a completely incorrect application of Occam's Razor. Second, this story is all over the news, not just News of the World.

    9. Re:Most likely explanation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Neither does the UK - Victoria Beckham was never a Spice girl - that's just an ugly rumour!

    10. Re:Most likely explanation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, the Screws is easily on par with the Daily Star, The Daily Sport and even The Sun!

    11. Re:Most likely explanation by TheoGB · · Score: 1

      So, first, that is a completely incorrect application of Occam's Razor.

      It's not completely incorrect. The allusion is obvious that if we consider all the likely possibilities, an incorrect initial test is the simplest and most obvious.

      On the other hand, there seems to be a lot of interest generated around this, enough for me to wonder that it could be that simple, given that would naturally be the first assumption of the authorities too. Presumably the two samples have been checked a few times now...

    12. Re:Most likely explanation by sco08y · · Score: 4, Informative

      Occam's Razor simply indicates which possibility is the *most likely* to be correct.

      Good grief. It doesn't *indicate* anything, or "suggest" in the manner the grandparent post used the word. It's a guideline or a rule of thumb that says, "choose the simpler possibility."

    13. Re:Most likely explanation by sco08y · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you can quote a few recent examples where the NoW has been incorrect?

              * The Victoria Beckham `kidnap' plot case collapses. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2957922.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2957982.stm
              * Justin Timberlake's alleged sex-life ends in a libel payout. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/film/4180 046.stm
              * Bobby Gillespie's alleged sex-life ends in a libel payout (although winning a case that you didn't with Kate Moss seems bad for your rock and roll reputation). http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio1/artist_area/primalscre am/ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/music/393 5973.stm
              * Keith Gillespie's alleged sex-life ends in a libel payout http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/472887 9.stm
              * Jimmy Nail's alleged sex-life ends in a libel payout http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and_ra dio/3571113.stm
              * The Nadine Milroy-Sloane affair: my, that was good journalism. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1498573.stm


      We stand corrected. Who needs the CDC when we have the paparazzi?

    14. Re:Most likely explanation by mo^ · · Score: 1

      Nah, the sport is quality.

      It always has been and always will be a comic and has never tried to be anything but. The other though think they are actually newspapers.

      (/me stays schtum on the Daily Mail)

      --
      bah!*@%!
    15. Re:Most likely explanation by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1
      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    16. Re:Most likely explanation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah yes, forgot about the Daily Wail.

      How will a cure for HIV affect house prices?

    17. Re:Most likely explanation by jvchamary · · Score: 1

      "I predict an expose and retraction within the week." RETRACTION? Clearly, you haven't ever read the News of the World.

    18. Re:Most likely explanation by Kadin2048 · · Score: 1

      Mod parent up -- although I didn't run the numbers to check, I agree that it seems far more likely that there was a series of false-positive tests originally, especially given that the person is a gay man in a relationship with an infected individual, pretty much your stereotypical AIDS patient. It doesn't take too much imagination to think that perhaps they ran the first antibody test, it came back as a false positive, they ran another one, it came back false positive too (if each has a 10% FP rate than that's only a 1:100 chance, not wholly insignificant) and then just went "yep, you have HIV, thanks for playing."

      Although I agree more tests definitely need to be done (and if this guy doesn't want to work with the same clinic that possibly fucked up the original test, fine -- go to a different hospital or clinic, that'll make the results more believable anyway), the odds of it being a bunch of false positives in a row, helped out by the 'confirmation bias' as a result of him being the typical case demographic, seem much higher than the chances he was actually thoroughly infected with the virus and managed to cure himself.

      --
      "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    19. Re:Most likely explanation by ray-auch · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Unfortunately once you add in other facts, Occam becomes a little tougher because you have to add far more assumptions:

      1. the tests have been checked and re-checked (as part of litigation from the subject) and concluded that both sets of tests were accurate (and hence the clinic has no case to answer). You have to assume _all_ the tests/retests were faulty the same way, or a medical establishment conspiracy / cover-up.

      2. since the first positive, the subject claims to have been having unprotected sex with his positive partner. So now you also have to assume that he is either really lucky, or he is lying also (part of the above conspiracy?)

      Personally I think the simplest theory is that this guy's immune system can kick out the virus.

    20. Re:Most likely explanation by DataCannibal · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Perhaps you can quote a few examples of good journalism, no.. scratch that, make it just a few examples of journalism, in the News of the World. Although I'm making the great leap of faith that you, as a possible NotW reader actually knows what journlism is.

      --
      No but, yeah but, no but...
    21. Re:Most likely explanation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, I wish my alleged sex life would at least end in a libel payout.

    22. Re:Most likely explanation by tsarmallon · · Score: 1

      Perhaps the patient simply had a low titer of virus in his blood serum. Many of the tests used today are very sensitive, but still will only show positive results if the virus titer is above the 20units/L. Also, the blood level of viremia is not commensurate to level of the virus in the reproductive tract. Patients on combination therapy often experience this phenomenon, and falsely believe they are not capable of passing on the infection. Be wary of Dr. Duesberg who claims that HIV is not the causative agent of AIDs. He will surely use this man as evidence to support his hypothesis that AIDs is caused by drug abuse, malnutrition and other social problems. He has already cozened leaders of many African nations into believing his lies, and subsequently reversed many of the HIV prevention measures established by the hard work of thousands.

    23. Re:Most likely explanation by glyph42 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Hear hear! When Occam's Razor comes up in discussion like this, I usually point out that nearly every scientific discovery has been a counter-case for the notion that Occam's Razor actually indicates anything. As we gain more information from observations, theories often require revision, often becoming more complex. It is, as you say, a rule of thumb. A sensible work ethic.

      --
      Music speeds up when you yawn, but does not change pitch.
    24. Re:Most likely explanation by Darius+Jedburgh · · Score: 1

      SInce when has Baye's Theorem been called "Occam's Razor"?

    25. Re:Most likely explanation by StopSayingYouSir · · Score: 1
      Wow, I wish my alleged sex life would at least end in a libel payout.

      Most slashdotters' sex lives end with a payout. Of course, they're the ones doing the paying out (and it isn't for libel)...

    26. Re:Most likely explanation by Shaper_pmp · · Score: 1

      Deary, deary me. Occam's Razor says "don't multiply entities needlessly". Emphasis on the needlessly.

      Increasing complication of scientific theories doesn't negate Occam's Razor, since the entities aren't multiplied needlessly.

      However, asserting that (for example) gravity isn't caused by curvature of space through the forth dimension, but is in fact conjured into existence by invisible yellow pixies is against Occam's Razor, since the curvature of space is the simpler explanation, explains the observations, is supported by more evidence and requires the fewest "new" elements to be added.

      --
      Everything in moderation, including moderation itself
    27. Re:Most likely explanation by bk4u · · Score: 1

      Maybe it should have been rule of wrist.

      --
      Remember kids, with great power comes great opportunity to abuse that power
    28. Re:Most likely explanation by shis-ka-bob · · Score: 1

      Don't forget Polythene Pam, who really was attractively built.

      --
      Think global, act loco
    29. Re:Most likely explanation by Surt · · Score: 1

      Even worse, centuries of scientific evidence suggest that Occam's razor is incorrect!

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    30. Re:Most likely explanation by uberdave · · Score: 1

      The "yellow pixies" you refer to are called gravitons, and are in fact being sought after by some of the most renown particle physics research labs on the planet.

    31. Re:Most likely explanation by AaronGTurner · · Score: 1

      Occam's razor suggests that given two competing theories which explain the observations you have, choose the simpler one. It assumes that both of the solutions are already correct in that they explain the available observations. If further observations come along that go counter to the theory or model you have, then you reexamine things.

    32. Re:Most likely explanation by Shaper_pmp · · Score: 1

      No, gravitons are gravitons. Invisible yellow pixies are invisible yellow pixies.

      But the great thing about Occam's Razor is that if you take the "Invisible Yellow Pixies" theory and apply Occam's Razor to it, once you've bent it to match the evidence and stripped away all the other extraneous bits, then "Invisible Yellow Pixies" do tend towards resembling "gravitons".

      We don't know if gravitons even have a real existence (they're merely implied by quantum mechanics), but if quantum mechanics is correct on this (eg, we prove spacetime curvature is quantized), gravitons are then the "simplest" explanation that explains the observed evidence.

      At the moment spacetime appears to be continuous, so we use Relativity. If/when a quantum theory of gravity is proposed, and explains evidence Relativity can't, Quantum Gravity becomes the explanation that Occam's Razor would lead us to.

      What was your point?

      --
      Everything in moderation, including moderation itself
  9. Waht's next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    HIV Defender? :)

    1. Re:Waht's next? by FidelCatsro · · Score: 2, Funny

      They have had those for a while , they are called condoms (Though not an 100% defence)

      --
      The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
    2. Re:Waht's next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Spelling Nazi Defender!

    3. Re:Waht's next? by Monkofdoom · · Score: 1

      Its amazing that he was found to be cured in 2003 but only now the bbc have realised :O

      --
      - http://www.howstuffbreaks.com/ We break stuff so you don't have to
  10. money making opp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    If this guy was low enough, he could probably make a fair bit of money. Theres a lot of money in sucking in the desperate, which a lot of fraudulant 'doctors' cash in with in their so called cures for cancer etc.

    With his story to back up his claims, he could rake in some dough teaching people how to defeat it, even if he doesn't really know himself, or doesn't actually cure anyone.

    1. Re:money making opp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's signed contracts with two sensationalist tabloid newspapers - The News of The World and the Mail on Sunday. 'nuff said?

    2. Re:money making opp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...sucking in the desperate...

      That is how he was infected in the first place.

  11. This guy wants compensation?! by j4mes · · Score: 1, Insightful

    "He sought compensation but has apparently been told there is no case to answer because there was no fault with the testing procedure."

    Seriously, this guy doesn't sound like the nice type at all: he won't cooperate to find out if he holds the key to cure a horific disease and tries to get compensation when it turns out he's healthy!

    1. Re:This guy wants compensation?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      He sought compensation but has apparently been told there is no case to answer because there was no fault with the testing procedure."

      Seriously, this guy doesn't sound like the nice type at all: he won't cooperate to find out if he holds the key to cure a horific disease and tries to get compensation when it turns out he's healthy!


      nothing in the article said that he was unwilling to help, he said he didn't want to be retested. actually, this bbc article has been changed since i read it a couple days ago, and in the original article, it mentioned him saying he would like to do whatever he can to help find a cure.

      about the suing for compensation, it might seem unreasonable because he doesn't have HIV now, but imagine you were diagnosed with a terminal disease, and your life sinking until you want to commit suicide. sounds reasonable to sue for punitive damages to me. then again, the testing people probably have some sort of "not 100% guaranteed" clause in some sort of medical form you have to sign.

    2. Re:This guy wants compensation?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you know "he won't cooperate to find out if he holds the key to cure a horific disease"?

    3. Re:This guy wants compensation?! by ilitirit · · Score: 1

      To be honest, I'd probably do the same thing if I thought they made a mistake. Imagine what it must have been like for him and his family finding out he was HIV+

    4. Re:This guy wants compensation?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quote from Scrubs:

      bad doctor: "He's not sick? - Sound like good news!"
      dr reid: "Well, he took it as bad news for the un-necesary colonescope I had to shove up his pooper"

    5. Re:This guy wants compensation?! by Senjutsu · · Score: 4, Informative

      Uh, no. He sued them when the first negative test came back, on (what would normally be) the sound theory that was evidence that the original positive test had been botched. The hospital then did extensive testing on both the positive and negative samples, at which point they came to the stunning conclusion that both results were correct. The lawsuit ended at that point.

    6. Re:This guy wants compensation?! by vidarh · · Score: 2, Informative
      He lived for a year or so thinking he had a lethal disease and having to stay clear of sex partners, and may for what you know have made a lot of other decisions as a result of the original test which may have negatively affected his long term economic prospects ("hey, I'm going to be dead in a few years, I might as well cash in my pension and by a Porsche"). Without knowing more about the reasons you don't really have any basis for judging his behaviour.

      That's even assuming that the story was reported accurately, which you also don't know.

    7. Re:This guy wants compensation?! by mattspammail · · Score: 1
      nothing in the article said that he was unwilling to help

      From TFA:

      When we became aware of Mr Stimpson's HIV negative test results we offered him further tests to help us investigate and find an explanation for the different results.

      "So far Mr Stimpson has declined this offer."

      Doesn't get much clearer in my book.

      --
      Now accepting PayPal donations!
    8. Re:This guy wants compensation?! by Hognoxious · · Score: 2, Informative

      So, no step 4 then?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    9. Re:This guy wants compensation?! by ray-auch · · Score: 1

      It is perfectly clear. He declined the offer of retests from the same place that did his first tests.

      How do you extend that to mean that he is unwilling to help?

      Maybe he is willing to help, but doesn't want to go back to the same set of doctors/labs who messed up (possibly) in the first place ?

      He is/has also apparently tried to claim compensation for the test issue. Clearly there is potential for conflict of interest if he goes back to the same clinic - quite possibly he has been advised not to by his lawyer. I'm slightly suprised that (for the same reason) the same doctors would want to be further involved with the case if there was a compensation claim pending.

    10. Re:This guy wants compensation?! by dcw3 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Uh, no. He sued them when the first negative test came back, on (what would normally be) the sound theory that was evidence that the original positive test had been botched. The hospital then did extensive testing on both the positive and negative samples, at which point they came to the stunning conclusion that both results were correct. The lawsuit ended at that point.

      So, in order to cover their legal arses, the hospital came up with this miracle?
      1. Botch HIV test
      2. Get sued
      3. Generate Hocus Pocus theory
      4. Profit (or at least don't lose a few million)

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    11. Re:This guy wants compensation?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod parent down, his conclusion is neither interesting nor logical at all given the previous statement. They discovered afterall that the tests wern't botched. This really leads to two possible explanations, the basic tests have a flaw allowing occasional misdiagnosis (this wouldn't make the hospital liabel, cause it wouldn't be there fault), or he is cured.

    12. Re:This guy wants compensation?! by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      Mod parent down, his conclusion is neither interesting nor logical at all given the previous statement. They discovered afterall that the tests wern't botched. This really leads to two possible explanations, the basic tests have a flaw allowing occasional misdiagnosis (this wouldn't make the hospital liabel, cause it wouldn't be there fault), or he is cured.

      Please feel free to mod down my comment above. However, when you say "they discovered..." isn't this a case of the fox watching the hen house? Are you stating that this isn't a possiblity, and in fact a more likely one than him possibly curing himself? Sure the tests could have a flaw, but if that were the case, wouldn't we see this outcome much more frequently? So, go ahead and disagree with my theory, but please don't state that it's not logical until you've shown that it couldn't have actually been the case. And, while I've got my tinfoil hat on, might I suggest that you're posting as an AC because you're the one that got sued?...no, I don't really believe that, but geez, grow some balls.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
  12. It's not surprising by ReformedExCon · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It's certainly unusual and unexpected in such a short period of time, but it ought not be surprising that some people may have immune systems that can fight the HIV virus. It's evolution in action.

    The Plague, which ravaged Europe and decimated its urban populations may be one reason the immunity (or strong resistance, if you prefer) to HIV was found first in a European. Those who survived the Plague, among those who were exposed to it, had a genetic trait that gave them immunity. This may be one reason why Europeans are generally less susceptible to the virus than other ethnicities whose populations were not exposed to a very widespread and violently virulent disease.

    Good news for this guy! Hopefully the answer to the disease is found in his bloodstream.

    --
    Jesus saved me from my past. He can save you as well.
    1. Re:It's not surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      We proud Arians are a superior race.

    2. Re:It's not surprising by MidnightBrewer · · Score: 1

      Except that no two viruses are created equal. Just because you survived the bubonic plague (several centuries ago) does not guarantee you'll have the right physiology to fight a completely unrelated disease.

      Considering that the US was settled largely by Europeans, you'd think there'd be a high chance of European-descended AIDS-immune cases there as well.

      --
      "Give a man fire, and he'll be warm for a day; set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life
    3. Re:It's not surprising by ReformedExCon · · Score: 1

      Yes, you would expect that. A quick look at the statistics for infection show that in relation to population, whites (Europeans) have a very low rate of infection in comparison to others.

      http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats.htm#aidsrace

      The low rate among Asians is also noteworthy.

      --
      Jesus saved me from my past. He can save you as well.
    4. Re:It's not surprising by wall0159 · · Score: 1

      Yes, it's not so surprising that there is a person who can fight AIDS. The fact that he's European is neither here nor there. Since AIDS has no known link to plague, it's unlikely that there'd be any advantage in exposure to plague.

      "..were not exposed to a very widespread and violently virulent disease." is simply untrue. I can't remember the exact details of the plagues, but at least one of the outbreaks of plague originated in China (quick search: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Bubonic_plagu e_outbreaks).

      Anyway, aside from that, there've been MANY other virulent diseases! ;-)

    5. Re:It's not surprising by ReformedExCon · · Score: 1

      This is a link to another Slashdot post by another user, but I thought it would be interesting in response to your comment.

      Also, see my other post in this thread regarding the extremely low incidence of AIDS (not HIV infection) among Asians.

      --
      Jesus saved me from my past. He can save you as well.
    6. Re:It's not surprising by caenorhabditas · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually, knowing a bit about the mechanisms both the Yersinia pestis bacteria and HIV use to cause illness, it's not surprising that developing a resistance to one causes resistance to the other. Both attack the same T cells in the immune system, and both even bind to the same CD4 receptor of the T cells. Thus, mutations in the CD4 receptor that are still functional to the organism but disallow the binding by the pathogen would create a form of immunity.

      Certainly, not every form of plague immunity would translate to HIV immunity, but because of the similarities between the two pathogens, some types do transfer.

    7. Re:It's not surprising by ReformedExCon · · Score: 1
      --
      Jesus saved me from my past. He can save you as well.
    8. Re:It's not surprising by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

      Actually, having a good immune system for a certain virus will most likely mean a less efficient immune system for other virusses; it's not like the immune system has unlimited flexibility, AFAIK.

      Besides, the plague isn't the only virus the world has ever survived. Pretty good chance all ethnicities got their share of deadly deceases to survive over the history of mankind.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    9. Re:It's not surprising by Baddas · · Score: 1
      Actually, having a good immune system for a certain virus will most likely mean a less efficient immune system for other virusses; it's not like the immune system has unlimited flexibility, AFAIK.

      Besides, the plague isn't the only virus the world has ever survived. Pretty good chance all ethnicities got their share of deadly deceases to survive over the history of mankind.


      Firstly, this is almost exactly the opposite of how it actually works. Your immune system is immensely overbuilt and incredibly flexible, almost too much so. There are tens of thousands of different immune system triggers that are lying dormant right now because you've never been exposed to something that activated them. This is the reason we get allergies, our immune systems are almost inconcievably overpowered because of the evolutionary pressure to not get sick and die.

      Secondly, the Bubonic Plague is not a virus. It is a bacterium. As another poster stated, it uses the same CD4 receptor to make its way into your immune cells as HIV does. So there's a strong relationship between immune system resilience to both at once. Even if you've only got one copy of the mutated CD4 receptor, that makes it more difficult for HIV and the plague to enter your T cells, and thus lends resistance. So there's a reasonable expectation that people who survived the plague will be less prone to be infected by HIV when exposed.
    10. Re:It's not surprising by dominion · · Score: 2

      We proud Arians are a superior race.

      But oddly enough, spelling isn't your people's strong point, is it?

    11. Re:It's not surprising by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1
      immunity (or strong resistance, if you prefer) to HIV was found first in a European.

      I seem to recall reading about a small population of African prostitutes who don't seem to become HIV positive, despite risky behavior.

      If a solution is going to evolve, it will be an Africa, because of the large proportion of people who are affected.

    12. Re:It's not surprising by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 4, Funny

      I say if there is someone alive now who survived the plague way back when then we should be studying him for his immortability rather than his HIV resistance.

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
    13. Re:It's not surprising by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 1

      This case is important because it's fully documented with a proper medical history etc. the cases in africa only come to light after the event, and there's no history to draw on.

      He's not the first person to 'recover' from HIV, and won't be the last.. the news stories I've seen have made this clear.

    14. Re:It's not surprising by Hal_Porter · · Score: 2, Interesting


      Both attack the same T cells in the immune system, and both even bind to the same CD4 receptor of the T cells. Thus, mutations in the CD4 receptor that are still functional to the organism but disallow the binding by the pathogen would create a form of immunity.


      I heard about some research that claims that this is the case

      http://www.abc.net.au/science/k2/moments/s714968.h tm

      So if you're from N Europe, have upto a 14% chance of immunity to Aids.

      Interestingly enough there's an analogue to African restistance to malaria -

      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/disease/sickle.html

      Sickle cell anemia is obviously not a good thing to have, but it does give you some resistance to malaria.

      Makes you wonder what the downside to not having CCR5 proteins is.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    15. Re:It's not surprising by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      Asians and Native Americans don't have the CCR5 mutation, so it must be a behavioural thing. Maybe they are more conscientious about using condoms, or inject less or something.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    16. Re:It's not surprising by Kookus · · Score: 1

      The british should be immune to tons of stuff then, it's amazing what they can accomplish sharing only 1 small gene pool.

    17. Re:It's not surprising by FST777 · · Score: 1

      It's evolution in action

      But given the facts that this man is gay, and evolution depends on natural selection, this immune-system will remain unique.

      (For the record: this is not evolution in action, but at the most it is one man's luck with a mutation in his immune system. It would be evolution if this mutation spread within the population, thus diminishing HIV to a flu-like thread. Evolution requires genetic mutations and natural selection (read: offspring). There is no connection with the Black Death, the two virusses are completely unrelated)

      I heard a story before about a British doctor who researched on HIV and got the virus by accident. He is believed to have cured himself by taking heavy antibiotics right away. Anyway, this man could have the anti-bodies needed for a proper medicin / vaccin. Great news, if it is true.

      --
      Free beer is never free as in speech. Free speech is always free as in beer.
    18. Re:It's not surprising by Cheapy · · Score: 1

      Too bad he won't be passing his genes anytime soon...

      --
      Would you kindly mod me +1 insightful?
    19. Re:It's not surprising by tarmithius · · Score: 1

      Antibiotics do not work on viruses, vaccines are effective though and there is no known vaccine for HIV.

      Prevention of viral disease

    20. Re:It's not surprising by g0at · · Score: 1

      some people may have immune systems that can fight the HIV virus

      Especially if they enter their PIN number into an ATM machine using either a SCSI interface or USB bus.

      -b

    21. Re:It's not surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can't be bothered to log in to post what i'm surprised no-one else has mentioned. The bubonic plague was / is caused by Yersinia Pestis (sp ?) which is a bacteria not a virus and is, therefore, totally unrelated to HIV immunity (tho' IANAMB).

    22. Re:It's not surprising by wbeck85 · · Score: 1

      Apology for going off topic, but isn't "USB bus" redundant, considering that "USB" is an acronym for "Universal Serial Bus" ? It's like saying "Bus Bus" Though that does sound kind of funny.

    23. Re:It's not surprising by g0at · · Score: 1

      Uh. That was the point of the joke. Are you making another joke? Which one of us is dense here?

      -b

    24. Re:It's not surprising by wbeck85 · · Score: 1

      Oh, shoot, you are right. "HIV virus" oh yeah. Now I get it. Shoot. *Droops head and raises hand* I'm the dense one.

    25. Re:It's not surprising by mikael · · Score: 1

      That would be the delta32 variant of the CCR5 molecule.. Maybe he simply had a defective version of the virus or a mutant protein that the virus needs.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    26. Re:It's not surprising by FST777 · · Score: 1

      That's why I didn't believe the story about the doctor too, but hey, I only studied biotechnology for one year with no result...

      regarding the vaccin: I was referring to the person in TFA. There is indeed no known working vaccine for HIV, allthough I did paper-researched a proposed vaccine-method using viral particles for my study. Sounded promising, but they were missing detailed information about effective anti-bodies. Something this guy (from TFA) might have.

      --
      Free beer is never free as in speech. Free speech is always free as in beer.
    27. Re:It's not surprising by ratpack91 · · Score: 1

      you've lost me there. The GP spelling is correct.

    28. Re:It's not surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      It's not just a story. Several health care workers have been exposed to HIV through needlestick injuries and show no measurable sign of infection. Presumably this is due to post-exposure prophylaxis, which is to say, huge doses of anti-infective drugs within less than an hour of the injury. One common protocol among healthcare workers involves zidovudine, lamivudine and indinavir, all three of which are pretty strong anti-retroviral drugs.

      That's a little like saying that this rock I'm holding is keeping all of the tigers away, but there are similar cases involving HIV-contaminated needlestick injuries in which the worker did not follow the post-exposure protocols fully and is now infected with HIV.

      For a bit more information, read this whitepaper: Ignorance of post-exposure prophylaxis guidelines following HIV needlestick injury may increase the risk of seroconversion

    29. Re:It's not surprising by damsa · · Score: 1

      The GGP mispelled Asian.

    30. Re:It's not surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's "Aryan", not "Arian". But maybe the above poster did mean to say "Asian."

      Who knows?

    31. Re:It's not surprising by ratpack91 · · Score: 1
      Arian may refer to one of the following:
      * Obsolete spelling of Aryan, Aryan race.

      I took it to mean the above. As in white european. The term is used by Nazi's and KKK people when talking about the "master race" etc. Hence "We proud [Aryans] are a superior race."

  13. he's not the first by PermanentMarker · · Score: 4, Interesting

    There have been more reports of people who cured themselves alltough they are exremly rare. Anyway it is how evolution works, by random creations and statistics i gues in the end a few survive. How would they test this man i wonder? Would they clone his bone cells to to make white bloodcells? what's next in genetics analyse thos cells and combine with people who survived other diseases, and then give everyone a DNA upgrade ?

    --
    I know you're out there. I can feel you now. I know that you're afraid. You're afraid of us. You're afraid of change.
    1. Re:he's not the first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      magic johnson?

    2. Re:he's not the first by evilninjax · · Score: 1

      >Anyway it is how evolution works, by random creations and statistics i gues in the end a few survive. Evolution's not supposed to give superior genetic traits to gay people! Maybe the guy's just scared that the Gov't will force him to procreate and pass on these genes. -goro-

    3. Re:he's not the first by paulthomas · · Score: 1

      By random variation. To call it random creation offends the mind.

    4. Re:he's not the first by PermanentMarker · · Score: 1

      Ehm think twice :) First not only gay people can get HIV. Second treuly gay people cann't pass trough their genetics to next generations. The way he was born was genetics and evolution at work. So evolution did give him thos abilities but if he is gay then it's unlikely he will pass trough his DNA. hmm what a genetic cure it then might become, you won't able to get hiv but might turn gay... Ehm since i myself prefer girls i'm not sure if i would take such drug.

      --
      I know you're out there. I can feel you now. I know that you're afraid. You're afraid of us. You're afraid of change.
    5. Re:he's not the first by PermanentMarker · · Score: 1

      only for creationists, it's hard to except.. Anyway the way we human reproduce is quit complex and doesn't follow the normal evolution rules. I mean look at the wildlife the strongest survive there. This is not the case for humans, since we cure the weak and rather let our favourites kind og people prefer by glossy magazins or comercial babes, or just by a lot of beer and hard music. So what we humans do is not so logic at al and in effect a quite close to random reproduction.

      --
      I know you're out there. I can feel you now. I know that you're afraid. You're afraid of us. You're afraid of change.
    6. Re:he's not the first by paulthomas · · Score: 1

      I was only taking exception to the use of the word "creation," suggesting that creation has nothing to do with genetic variation in the sense used. Things like genetic drift and mutations do however. Creation implies intent.

  14. Article lacking in details by antifoidulus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    For example, what kind of test did he use? Most of the HIV tests actually test for antibodies, not the HIV virus itself. It is completely possible, and does happen on occaision, that the body will produce antibodies that are similiar to HIV antibodies but there is no HIV in the body. The antibodies don't do anything, but they do confirm the presence of the virus. The body then could have later stopped producing the antibodies.

    1. Re:Article lacking in details by KC7JHO · · Score: 1

      Yet the article states he continued to have unprotected sex with his partner who was infected. If he was not infected he would be by now.

  15. Editorial error by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative
    From headline:

    He is now a wanted man after researchers and doctors want him to come back for further testing but he has so far refused.


    From TFA:

    He has told the papers he would do anything he could to help find a cure.
    1. Re:Editorial error by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's not an editorial error, it's an inconsistancy in the behaviour of the allegedly cured man. He says he wants to help the scientists, but he's not willing to go through the tests. It seems likely that he's an attention whore.

    2. Re:Editorial error by jefu · · Score: 1
      Maybe he's just reluctant to put himself through that kind of pain - lots of blood taken and who knows what else.

      And then to have some greedy doctor or drug company patent the resulting drugs and sell them to the world's AIDS patients for billions and billions. Including his HIV+ partner.

      I, personally, hope he helps out - but I hope he does it after consulting a bunch of lawyers and finding some way to ensure that the drug companies don't ride his blood to profits.

    3. Re:Editorial error by Matt+Perry · · Score: 1
      Also from TFA, fourth paragraph:
      The trust said the tests were accurate but had been unable to confirm Scotsman Mr Stimpson's cure because he had declined to undergo further tests.
      --
      Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
  16. Related /. Article by balance+one · · Score: 2, Informative

    Gene Found In Black Death Survivors Stops HIV:
    Posted by Zonk on Friday October 28, @08:37PM

    1. Re:Related /. Article by oliverthered · · Score: 1

      What's interesting is that some people who survived the Black Death became ill first and got better, it's been hypothesized that they only had one copy of the mutant gene. It may be possible that something similar has happened here and the reason it hasn't been picked up on before is because people with one copy of the gene may not get ill enough to bother getting tested for HIV. On the other hand the Black death gene has been known to prevent HIV for a good few years from research into gay men who had lots of HIV+ partners but never caught HIV themselfs, and the way that the gene works is by preventing HIV from entering white blood cells at an early stage of infection.

      --
      thank God the internet isn't a human right.
  17. Miracle has happened by markiv34 · · Score: 0, Troll

    Can he walk on water

    --
    No Black or White only shades of Gray
  18. Science subject by Crizp · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Most likely, if he agreed to testing, they'd only need a blood sample now and then. Take a pint. Instant research material, fresh from the cooler, for ages.

    1. Re:Science subject by leenoble_uk · · Score: 5, Funny

      A PINT! That's nearly a whole armful.

    2. Re:Science subject by Crizp · · Score: 2, Funny

      You ever donated blood? :)

    3. Re:Science subject by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's a quote. Tony Hancock. Classic British comedy from the 50s.

    4. Re:Science subject by zebs · · Score: 3, Funny

      :) wheres the mod points when you need them!?

    5. Re:Science subject by leenoble_uk · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I don't think any of the mods are old enough to get the reference.
      What a waste.

    6. Re:Science subject by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't sound so "bitter"

    7. Re:Science subject by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They come in pints!?

    8. Re:Science subject by GraemeDonaldson · · Score: 1

      How old is "old enough"? I'm 27 and I caught on immediately. Of course my father has several old Tony Hancock LPs which I would listen to while I was growing up. Lots of Goon Show LPs as well.

      Now if you'll excuse me, I'll be off to warm myself by my woman. She's just coming to the boil.

      --
      I think, therefore I am. I think?
    9. Re:Science subject by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah. I'm not wandering around all day with a limp arm just to satisfy some legalized vampire...

    10. Re:Science subject by DrRhinehart · · Score: 1

      The line was "That's very nearly an armful!" Cap'n pedantic ;)

    11. Re:Science subject by tehshen · · Score: 4, Funny

      Don't worry, there's no 'arm in giving blood!

      sorry, sorry...

      --
      Guy asked me for a quarter for a cup of coffee. So I bit him.
    12. Re:Science subject by Mattcelt · · Score: 2, Funny

      Hey, everybody knows you can't give blood if you've been in the UK for more than 3 months...

    13. Re:Science subject by Sean-Khan · · Score: 1

      Well it's easy to find compensation for that amount.

    14. Re:Science subject by absinthminded64 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Have you never been homeless?! Colt 45 and Old English aren't sold in convenient fluid replenishing pint sizes by mistake.

    15. Re:Science subject by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 1

      "It comes in pints?"

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    16. Re:Science subject by KC7JHO · · Score: 1

      These test will cost him an Arm and a Leg!

      So sry, I just couldn't resist.

    17. Re:Science subject by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah, so do elephants....

    18. Re:Science subject by jamesots · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry. I'm not walking around with an empty arm for anybody.

      --
      Ho hum for the life of a bear
    19. Re:Science subject by Seigen · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I think he has a right to refuse to be tested, but I still think he should do it within reason. I think they should pay him a premium for his time though. Altruism is all well and good, but considering most drug research appears to be, primarily, for the purpose of enriching those that pay for the research, I see no reason why he should not be compensated.

    20. Re:Science subject by briancurtin · · Score: 0

      I didnt know you have to be homeless to drink Old E? At least when I become homeless, I'll be partially prepared.

      --
      My UID is a palindrome, that must be good for some type of prize.
    21. Re:Science subject by IsoRashi · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Modded funny but true in some cases :-/ I lived over in England for 3 years and the Red Cross won't take my blood because of it.

      --
      This is not the greatest sig in the world, no. This is just a tribute.
    22. Re:Science subject by tacocat · · Score: 1

      On one side, he's being an ass. If he really does have the potential for a cure, then he would do well for the community at large to assist where reasonable.

      On the other side one would not want to become a guinea pig in some laboratory. I think he might be able to make himself available on a fixed schedule and have science just figure out how to accomodate to it.

      But to simply refuse is not cool. There seems to be some questions if he even had the disease in the first place, but the articles seem rather certain of it. I think the first test would be to validate that he had HIV at some point and work from there.

    23. Re:Science subject by mink · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I seem to remember a couple years ago a news broadcast on the radio about a new AIDS drug cocktail that reduced traceable levels of the virus to the point tests could no longer detect it, but the person was not cured of HIV/AIDS.

      --
      Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
    24. Re:Science subject by ccarson · · Score: 1

      Maybe he does drugs and doesn't want the police to find out when he pisses into a cup.

    25. Re:Science subject by Jambon · · Score: 1
      Maybe he does drugs and doesn't want the police to find out when he pisses into a cup.

      That's it! Doing drugs cures AIDS!!! Just wait till the word spreads; people will be trying to get AIDS just to get the treatment.

    26. Re:Science subject by alextheseal · · Score: 2, Insightful

      He should allow the research, but ensure in the contract, checked by a very very good lawyer, that all patent rights(IP?) be donated into the public domain, forever with a poison pill clause for any company that attempts to co-opt those patent rights by derivative patents. That is a fair way to be truly altruistic.

    27. Re:Science subject by Lothsahn · · Score: 1

      Not to mention that he's previously contracted HIV...

      --
      -=Lothsahn=-
    28. Re:Science subject by buck_wild · · Score: 1

      Correct, you are. An example of this would be 'Magic' Johnson. He was confident enough about it to stop taking the ($10k per month) coctails, and after a time he was testing positive again.

      --
      If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
    29. Re:Science subject by buck_wild · · Score: 1

      An excellent idea! Ya know, if more people thought like this, we'd be living in a much better place...

      --
      If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
  19. Re:FUCK!!!!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    So, slashdot was quicker than usual this time?

  20. Wait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are you saying that if you could help scientists to cure a disease that's killing hundreds of thousands of people every year by devoting a big chunk of your time, you WOULDNT do it? You know you'd get massively paid for it too (research grants).

    But money aside, if I could save that many people just be submitting myself to some regular tests, I would.

    1. Re:Wait by Propagandhi · · Score: 5, Funny

      Are you saying that if you could help scientists to cure a disease that's killing hundreds of thousands of people every year by devoting a big chunk of your time, you WOULDNT do it?

      Hey man, didn't you read the GP!? He wants a normal life. Can't you understand that watching 10-12 hours of TV a week, working some shitty job, and breeding is more important than curing a disease which will destroy millions of lives?

    2. Re:Wait by ozmanjusri · · Score: 5, Funny

      working some shitty job, and breeding is more important than curing a disease

      Given that he contracted the HIV from his "44-year-old HIV-positive partner, Juan Gomez", I'd say breeding is not that high on his list of priorities.

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
    3. Re:Wait by aussie_a · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Are you saying that if you could help scientists to cure a disease that's killing hundreds of thousands of people every year by devoting a big chunk of your time, you WOULDNT do it?

      I would (up to a point), but I want the freedom to choose to do so.

    4. Re:Wait by indifferent+children · · Score: 4, Funny
      I would (up to a point), but I want the freedom to choose to do so.

      Fine, you have the freedom to do so. You just don't have the freedom to not do so. :)

      --
      Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it. --Mark Twain
    5. Re:Wait by cHALiTO · · Score: 1

      Oh he does have the freedom to choose no to be disturbed, and I will be the first to defend that freedom, but that doesn't make him any less of a selfish piece of shit!

      --
      "Luck is my middle name," said Rincewind, indistinctly. "Mind you, my first name is Bad." -- Terry Pratchett
    6. Re:Wait by utexaspunk · · Score: 1

      I would think that after testing positive, and thus being fully aware of the horrible fear that likely accompanies such a diagnosis, anyone with an ounce of love for humanity would do everything in their power to keep others from going through the same thing.

    7. Re:Wait by cayenne8 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      "You know you'd get massively paid for it too (research grants)."

      Well, maybe he first is waiting to get his gene's copyrighted and pattened. This will then ensure that he profits from any cures that come from his cooperation in studies.

      Otherwise...he probably won't make much. Medical research grants don't generally have a lot of funds targeted at paying the patients in the study...

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    8. Re:Wait by rickthewizkid · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Dunno about the job, but the relationship sounds pretty "shitty" too... ...Thank you, Thank you, I'll be here all week. Don't forget to tip the waitress

      Just my "no-pun-intended's worth"
      -RickTheWizKid

    9. Re:Wait by Hugonz · · Score: 3, Funny
      Given that he contracted the HIV from his "44-year-old HIV-positive partner, Juan Gomez", I'd say breeding is not that high on his list of priorities.

      It doesn't mean they don't try breeding every night, it's just that he does not get pregnant...

    10. Re:Wait by Ivana+Tinkle · · Score: 3, Informative
      "...killing hundreds of thousands of people every year..."

      Try over three million per year or >250,000 per month. And 95% of the burden is on developing countries.

      See World AIDS & HIV Statistics for stats.

    11. Re:Wait by MBraynard · · Score: 1

      Everyone has their price. Make him an offer. Few million lbs a year. Of course he's going to totally waste it and has no clue how to use that kind of money.

    12. Re:Wait by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      Hey the odds of getting pregnent might seem impossible, but they would have said the same thing about his AIDS clearing up too.... So, now that he has been cured of AIDS, and as soon as he solves the same gender pregnancy issue, what will be next on his list???

    13. Re:Wait by Catbeller · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well.

      The President, the VP, Attorney General Gonzalez and a cooperative bunch at the Pentagon and the various intelligence services have decided to kidnap people and imprison them around the world, with various flavors of continual torture and mind breaking, because they believe national security trumps "human rights" and established law.

      What's the moral difference between that, and grabbing "Patient Omega" in the name of finding an immunity factor for a disease killing millions? To up the stakes "24" style, what if HIV mutates and finds an easier vector? How about then?

      As a libertarian, small "l", I believe that patient Omega here has the right to refuse to cooperate. However, we've collectively flushed human rights away for the sake of "security", in exchange for which we've got a lot of dreamed-up terrorist plots from men under the knife. In the case of Omega, we could actually stop a superepidemic.

      Kidnapping is moral for the sake of fear, but not for saving millions or billions of lives? This is not an idle question in philosophy class. This is real and it is now. We've decided collectively that abduction and torture for an individual's lifetime is okay if we're afraid. Given that, what's the problem with putting Omega under the microscope, even against his will?

      Under disaster conditions in Louisiana, people are being blocked by the armed forces and some private killers hired by the U.S. from returning to their homes. Force? Yup. No one cares.

      Bush has straightforwardly declared he wants martial law and dictator powers if avian flu hits the U.S. Soldiers will grab people and lock them away, people will be shot if a soldier believes they warrant death. How is it okay to remove EVERYONE'S human rights if a bird flu epidemic hits, but not okay to drag one guy in for testing if the epidemic is HIV? Remember, HIV has killed millions. It's just not a quick as avian flu. HIV hits people doing naughty things, in the view of moralists, so it's not a priority?

      "Ethics" is about more than fetuses and stem cells. Ethics is what we decide to care about, and we have to decide every day. Who gets shot, who gets their knees broken, who loses their freedom if we decide it should be so?

    14. Re:Wait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must not be from the US. Let me translate to a way more Americans might sympathize with you.

      your statement: "But money aside, if I could save that many people just be submitting myself to some regular tests, I would."

      translation: "They'd pay you lots of money to study you and people will think you are a great person because you are helping people too."

    15. Re:Wait by SComps · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Are you saying that if you could help scientists to cure a disease that's killing hundreds of thousands of people every year by devoting a big chunk of your time, you WOULDNT do it?
      Thanks right, I wouldn't. Science hasn't figured out how to balance researching a "subject" without completely allocating that "subject's" time and resources. There's no way in hell I'd be a part of that. I'd go in for one more test to make sure the negative really was negative and be on my way. "Don't call me, I'll call you."
    16. Re:Wait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Here, in Canada, if someone died because you refused to help him, you'll go to jail...

    17. Re:Wait by MourningBlade · · Score: 1

      Given that he contracted the HIV from his "44-year-old HIV-positive partner, Juan Gomez", I'd say breeding is not that high on his list of priorities.

      The fellow could be suffering "survivor's guilt" - now, in addition to how upset he is over his lover cheating on him, and how upset he is over being HIV positive, he's now going to have to watch his lover die.

      I'm happy he'll live, but I don't envy him.

      I do hope he eventually chooses to help others out, but he's under no obligation.

    18. Re:Wait by Cervantes · · Score: 1
      I would (up to a point), but I want the freedom to choose to do so.

      Fine, you have the freedom to do so. You just don't have the freedom to not do so. :)

      You're an American, aren't you?

      --
      If I knew the wedgies I gave you back in 6th grade would have resulted in this . . . I might have taken a moments pause.
    19. Re:Wait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course he's going to totally waste it and has no clue how to use that kind of money.

      Fuck you and your whole tax bracket. Elitist fucking swine.

    20. Re:Wait by aussie_a · · Score: 1

      What's the moral difference between that, and grabbing "Patient Omega" in the name of finding an immunity factor for a disease killing millions?

      There isn't. But just because the Bush administration are a sack of unethical shits doesn't mean England has to follow suit quite as much.

    21. Re:Wait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think it said anywhere that his partner cheated on him... his partner may have already had HIC.

    22. Re:Wait by i8puppies · · Score: 0

      It doesn't mean they don't try breeding every night, it's just that he does not get pregnant...

      LOL nice

    23. Re:Wait by buck_wild · · Score: 1

      Yeah, um, thanks for that visual.

      I'm off to try to clear that out with some hetero-sexual examples now. LOTS of examples.

      --
      If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
    24. Re:Wait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you saying that if you could help scientists to cure a disease that's killing MILLIONS of people every year by devoting a big chunk of your time, you WOULDNT do it?

      Hey man, didn't you read the GP!? He wants a normal life. Can't you understand that watching 10-12 hours of TV a week, working some shitty job, and breeding is more important than curing a disease which HAS ALREADY KILLED OVER 20 MILLION people, DESTROYING OVER 60 MILLION lives, not including the millions of AIDS orphans & other HIV-negative family members?

      BTW, he probably is still infected, hence his not wanting to be re-tested.

      Even if he does re-test negative, he is probably still harbouring the virus, but at viral loads below the current technical threshold (which is actually a very common occurance)...

      Many people have already tested negative after treatment (due to the technical threshold of viral load), however the viral load eventually increases (within months)...

    25. Re:Wait by Math,+The+Ancient · · Score: 1

      Bush has straightforwardly declared he wants martial law and dictator powers if...

      Back this bull$hit FUD up with a link you got this 'quote' from.

      --
      If I really am talking out of my ass...explain it to me with respect so I'll at least pull my ears out to listen.
    26. Re:Wait by Phroggy · · Score: 1

      Obligatory:

      FRANCIS: Why are you always on about women, Stan?
      STAN: I want to be one.
      REG: What?
      STAN: I want to be a woman. From now on, I want you all to call me 'Loretta'.
      REG: What?!
      LORETTA: It's my right as a man.
      JUDITH: Well, why do you want to be Loretta, Stan?
      LORETTA: I want to have babies.
      REG: You want to have babies?!
      LORETTA: It's every man's right to have babies if he wants them.
      REG: But... you can't have babies.
      LORETTA: Don't you oppress me.
      REG: I'm not oppressing you, Stan. You haven't got a womb! Where's the foetus going to gestate?! You going to keep it in a box?!
      LORETTA: [crying]
      JUDITH: Here! I-- I've got an idea. Suppose you agree that he can't actually have babies, not having a womb, which is nobody's fault, not even the Romans', but that he can have the right to have babies.
      FRANCIS: Good idea, Judith. We shall fight the oppressors for your right to have babies, brother. Sister. Sorry.
      REG: What's the point?
      FRANCIS: What?
      REG: What's the point of fighting for his right to have babies when he can't have babies?!
      FRANCIS: It is symbolic of our struggle against oppression.
      REG: Symbolic of his struggle against reality.

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
  21. No need to ask by archeopterix · · Score: 5, Informative
    If you found out you had HIV, would you ask for a retest just to be sure it wasn't a mistake?
    No need to ask for a retest. The standard procedure is to perform a retest if the first test is positive.
    1. Re:No need to ask by BrainInAJar · · Score: 1

      But if the entirety of the first sample was compromised (it can happen), then all subsequent tests would show up as false positives as well

    2. Re:No need to ask by GraemeDonaldson · · Score: 1

      I imagine that whoever administers the test/s would draw a fresh batch of blood.

      --
      I think, therefore I am. I think?
    3. Re:No need to ask by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      They do retest it, they just don't always tell you. I donated blood and "tested positive". I of course found that to be highly unusual as:

      1.) I am a virgin (I know, I know, you must be in shock)
      2.) I have never done drugs (needle or not)
      3.) I have never had a blood transfusion (pre early 80s or not)

      It turns out that if you have a virus of any kind when you donate you'll get flagged. I had a cold the next day. They performed three tests, the first one was positive, and the second two, which I suppose are more refined, tested negative. Great relief, but you think they could have mentioned that in the letter they sent me!

    4. Re:No need to ask by monoqlith · · Score: 1

      But what if the first test is negative? That could very well be a false negative. It's unlikely, but possible. According to what you have said, would a retest be performed in such a case?

    5. Re:No need to ask by archeopterix · · Score: 1
      But what if the first test is negative? That could very well be a false negative. It's unlikely, but possible. According to what you have said, would a retest be performed in such a case?
      No. The current HIV tests are very sensitive - they have a very low false negative rate, with a relatively high false positive rate. The retest is to compensate for the latter. Anyway, most false negatives are due to the blood sample having been taken in the window period, so a retest (on the same sample) wouldn't help.
  22. I knew it! by scooter.higher · · Score: 5, Funny

    The Flying Spaghetti Monster proves once again that evolution does not happen by chance! This man must be a pirate, or a Pastafarian at a minimum!

    --
    Ramen
    1. Re:I knew it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suspect it is because he eats pasta and noodles and the FSM has taken pity upon him in his plight. Plus, I suspect he has a noodly appendage himself...

    2. Re:I knew it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The irony of it is that with most gay men, it's their "Noodly Appendage" that gets them AIDS in the first place.

    3. Re:I knew it! by FSM · · Score: 1

      What do you know about FSM? ;-)

    4. Re:I knew it! by jefu · · Score: 1
      The Flying Spaghetti Monster proves once again that evolution does not happen by chance! This man must be a pirate, or a Pastafarian at a minimum!

      Ramen!

    5. Re:I knew it! by greg1104 · · Score: 1

      It's obvious from the related News of the World article that Andrew is in fact a butt pirate.

    6. Re:I knew it! by 955301 · · Score: 1

      And what about the non-gay men? Do try to keep up with the data, will you?

      --
      You are checking your backups, aren't you?
  23. First? What about the African Prostitutes et.al.? by Xyleene · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'm sure I am not the only one that has seen documentries that include African prostitutes that have gathered a similar immunity to the virus. One of them was a Nova episode that aired on PBS last week (atleast I think it was last week). The women are exposed to the disease many times per day but seem unnafected by it. This sounds like a similar case for the following reasons:

    Article

    The article states that 1) The prostitutes are completely void of the virus and 2) The trait is not genetic. Therefore I assume that the people contract the virus and their immune system then deals with it. In this man's case if the first test was done before his immune system kicked in and the second one after then this could explain the result.

    P.S. I am not a doctor or in the medical field so I leave myself open to corrections. (and not just for my english ;0)

    --
    Give them the illusion of choice and they will blindly follow for they choose not to make one.
  24. Maybe... by HaveQuick · · Score: 5, Informative

    It is possible that this guy could have cured himself of HIV. There are a number of possibilities...

    1) He was infected with a weakened serotype of HIV.
    2) He has some unusual CCXR gene polymorphisms or some other gene defect leading to reduced ability of HIV to replicate, or the ability to clear the virus.

    It is possible the original test was wrong. However, in virtually all labs I know of, on a positive test there is a repeat and follow up test done. This normally a western blot. So, the odds of the result being wrong is exceedingly low.

    If this is for real... this guy is the luckiest son of a bitch alive.

    1. Re:Maybe... by advocate_one · · Score: 1

      you forget this is an NHS lab... mistakes are their forte... witness the ridiculous number of misdiagnoses in breast and cervical cancer tests. After all, the pay is crap (you wouldn't catch me wasting my degree in one of those crappy slots) and the labs are paid by the test, so the staff are under pressure to get tests through... just like the US patent office in a way: underpaid, and overworked and with no time to spend actually reviewing the case. I tend to favour the Occam's Razor approach here... it is far, far more likely that the original test result was wrong

      --
      Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
    2. Re:Maybe... by hcob$ · · Score: 1

      Don't you mean, "luckiest Queen alive"?

      --
      Cliff Claven
      K.E.G. Party Chairman
      Founding Leader of: Koncerned for Egalitarin Governance
    3. Re:Maybe... by NormAtHome · · Score: 1

      Of course anything is possible, but if it was me and there'd been known problems with the labs test results I'd triple check before I announced anything that's how reputations get ruined.

          There have been (at last report) at least a dozen reports of hiv positive babies (born to hiv positive mothers) that seemed to somehow throw off the virus and test negative. I remember reading that there were several research projects underway to try and figure out how they did it in the hopes that it could somehow lead to a cure.

          A good example of a beneficial gene defect is the one from that Italian Family that causes their bodies to produce a form of modified good cholesterol that seems to prevent clogged arteries or arterial sclerosis which is why people need heart bypass surgery. At last report the researchers who were working on it had done some limited testing, by injecting a daily dose of this modified good cholesterol people who had narrowed arteries had significant reduction of the plaque. I've been trying to keep track of this since my step father and a good friend both have had quadruple bypass surgery which usually even under the best of conditions gets clogged again in five to ten years and requires another surgery. So I find it totally believable that this guy may have some type of beneficial gene defect that may allow his system to throw off the virus.

    4. Re:Maybe... by Maltheus · · Score: 1

      However, in virtually all labs I know of, on a positive test there is a repeat and follow up test done.

      Isn't that second test usually done on the same blood sample? That was my understanding and if true, all it would take is for there to be a mix-up in samples.

  25. Re:This guy wants compensation?! MOD UP by Propagandhi · · Score: 1

    No shit. Obviously he had unprotected sex with someone somewhere, or he would have known the test was a false positive (I won't buy that he 'cured himself' until someone other than the News of the World is reporting it.) Everytime you have unprotected sex with someone you're taking a risk. I don't see how he can blame the doctors for his risky behavior.

    Hell, I'm sure there're millions of HIV infected who would be more than a little happy to hear they aren't actually infected. The kind of person that can't take this kind of news ('Hey, turns out you're not going to die in the next 5 to 12 years!') with a laugh, a smile, and a hug is an asshole and deserves to die of AIDS.

    And yeah, this is a bitter post. But think about it, this asshole's been spared by the cosmos while a million innocent children in Africa will die in the next few years. What's his reaction? Try and get "compensation."

    Stupid.

  26. What in the world? by CriminalNerd · · Score: 1

    If this guy DID cure himself of the HIV virus, then this would be the turning point in medical science! Maybe he had the delta 32 gene in him? Like the one this article had reported on. Or at least some mutation of it...

    1. Re:What in the world? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah, he has the extra chromosome from the Doom movie. At first he wanted to be greedy about it, then he saw the movie, didn't want to turn into an evil demon-creature-thingy, and now he wants to cooperate. :)

  27. Wanted: females by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Willing females wanted to have unprotected sex with this man in order to increase human kernel stability and eventually preserve the human race. Only respond with picture, please.

    555-letshivsex

    1. Re:Wanted: females by pookemon · · Score: 1

      Willing females wanted to have unprotected sex with this man in order to increase human kernel stability and eventually preserve the human race. Only respond with picture, please.

      Good plan, but your problem is in the second word... For him anyway...

      --
      dnuof eruc rof aixelsid
  28. Old news... already happened in africa... by Hurricane78 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Already some years ago I read that some aficans born in those areas with high aids distribution were born with a natural mutation making them immune to aids. Several laboratorys tried to extract a medicament out of it.

    I wonder what happened to it...

    But to have a second mutation for immunity are great news... Now i hope it does not get sweeped unter the carpet from big companies earning money with selling syptopm-fighting medicaments that don't *really* help at all...

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    1. Re:Old news... already happened in africa... by coleblak · · Score: 1

      I read recently that some people who have parents who both had--or had relatives on both sides who had--polio are showing immunities towards HIV or aids due to their parents passed on immunity factors. Unfortunately, I can't remember where exactly. A google search showed that there have been tests that had remissions and heightened T-cell counts after polio vaccination injections over a week long period.

      --
      77 HITS
      Really Long Off Topic Combo
  29. Re-Infect Him, yet again by TiggertheMad · · Score: 4, Funny

    He's already tried.

    Well, damn, I'm impressed.

    Perhaps we should hit him with a dose of Anthrax and see if his immune system can whip up a cure for that, too while we are at it...

    --

    HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
    1. Re:Re-Infect Him, yet again by Jekler · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yeah! Lets go all out! Antrhax, ebola, a little flesh-eating bacteria, throw in some influenze for good measure to balance out the portfolio. I mean these days skillsets are all about diversity, lets not short-change this guy by making him a one-trick pony. I mean, how is that going to sound in 25 years? "Hey, I cured HIV!" and everyone else is like "Yeah, we heard, big deal, what else can you do?"

    2. Re:Re-Infect Him, yet again by xtracto · · Score: 1

      Oh man, that was a really nice one, you made me laough really loud... you should see my coworkers face when I started laughing!

      Thanks, for giving me a little fun :)

      --
      Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
    3. Re:Re-Infect Him, yet again by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 1
      Yeah! Lets go all out! Antrhax, ebola, a little flesh-eating bacteria, throw in some influenze for good measure to balance out the portfolio.
      You forgot the plain old common cold...
    4. Re:Re-Infect Him, yet again by Ubergrendle · · Score: 1

      Dude, you missed cancer.

      Then you can submit an article: "Man develops antibodies for HIV. Still no...hey, cure for cancer!!!"

      --
      John Maynard Keynes: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?"
    5. Re:Re-Infect Him, yet again by timmerk15 · · Score: 1

      There are already Anthrax vaccines. My friend's dad invented one. Look up BioPort. (www.bioport.com)

      --
      Free stuff without getting the referrals? http://referralaccelerated.com
    6. Re:Re-Infect Him, yet again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      just tell the military that there are democrat congressman living in that area who may deny funding. He will be exposed.

    7. Re:Re-Infect Him, yet again by pintomp3 · · Score: 1

      i know you're joking, but this is probably why he is hesitant to become a lab rat. once they have made all the money they can off an aids cure, some ceo at a drug company will ask the same question.

    8. Re:Re-Infect Him, yet again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Man, if he could do that he'd be sooooo rich. If scientists could develop a universal vaccine from his blood, there'd be money pouring in from healthcare.

      If you look at government, they're seriously investing in prevention strategies for tons of health afflictions. Why? Because the cost of health-care is rising. If we continue addressing health problems with treatment, we'll have little or no money for infrastructure.

      If you could flatten health care expenditures over time... man... as a health policy maker, I'd start chucking cash at you.

      Also, I'm sure that global military powers would also throw some billions for anti-bio-terrorism applications.

  30. Man Cures Self of Aids by AliasMoze · · Score: 5, Funny

    He's a witch!!!

    1. Re:Man Cures Self of Aids by lemnik · · Score: 1

      But how do you know that he is a witch?

    2. Re:Man Cures Self of Aids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      $20 says this guy is gay, or had gay sex, when he contracted HIV.

    3. Re:Man Cures Self of Aids by gmby · · Score: 2, Funny

      Burn Him! Burn Him! Burn Him!....

      Oh and for you funny bone impaird; This is a Joke.
      And for the /. impaired; This is a (Score:5,Funny)

      --
      I don't want a pickle; I just want a Motor-Cycle! A four foot cop arrived with a five foot gun!
  31. sex unlimited ? :D by l3v1 · · Score: 1

    Well, first thing I thought was the initial test probably was wrong. Second thing I though was is this is true he can have sex the rest of his life without being afraid of aids. Well, this is /. and I'm here ,what did you expect ? :D
     

    --
    I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
    1. Re:sex unlimited ? :D by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Second thing I though was is this is true he can have sex the rest of his life without being afraid of aids.

      Now all he has to worry about is venerial diseases, pregnancies, expensive SOs and impotency. What a lucky guy.

    2. Re:sex unlimited ? :D by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      doubt he has to worry about pregnancy.

  32. Re:Patent...MOD UP!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Seriously, this is not "Funny". Check out Donna McClean from Bristol UK who HAS successfully patented herself and her entire genetic code. If this guy does have the autoimmune code to defeat AIDS he should be doing this RIGHT NOW to make sure it stays with the people, before any corporate weasels get a chance to 'discover' it.

  33. Re:First? What about the African Prostitutes et.al by archeopterix · · Score: 1
    I'm sure I am not the only one that has seen documentries that include African prostitutes that have gathered a similar immunity to the virus.
    From what I have read, no evidence shows that the immunity has been 'gathered'. It's genetic - you have it or you don't, right from your birth. High risk groups, like African prostitutes have a higher percent of people with this gene - not because they aquire it, but because the susceptible die off.
  34. Other cases of HIV immunity by jurt1235 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    In some countries in Africa scientists also discovered that certain prostitutes did not have aids. Since the infection rate is extremely high, they interviewed does prostitutes and concluded that the only reason that they did not have aids was or extreme luck (win powerball lottery everytime), or immunity against the virus. They also thought they could use these women for their research. After the initial news I have not seen any other news about this anymore.

    --

    My wife's sketchblog Blob[p]: Gastrono-me
    1. Re:Other cases of HIV immunity by narkotix · · Score: 2, Informative
      --
      We played dungeons and dragons for 3 hours.....then i was slain by an elf
    2. Re:Other cases of HIV immunity by Cygnus78 · · Score: 1

      Since the infection rate is extremely high...
      ...the only reason that they did not have aids was or extreme luck (win powerball lottery everytime)

      I thought the chance of transfer through sex was about 1 or 2 %, so not getting it is not exactly like winning the powerball lottery everytime.

    3. Re:Other cases of HIV immunity by AuMatar · · Score: 3, Informative

      No, but when you figure a prostitute has 3-4 johns a night, every night, her chances of having no infection after a year is pretty damn low. Call it 1000 jobs a year, and with an infection rate of p, the odds would be .98^(1000p). P only has to be 3% to make it a 50/50 shot. Some parts of Africa are much higher.

      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
    4. Re:Other cases of HIV immunity by jurt1235 · · Score: 1

      Average rates of infection go up to 15% in some regions. Assuming that the infected have more risky sex, the chance for a prostitute to have an infected client is higher than the 15%. After 1 year the chance of not having aids is then down to just 5%. Ok, chances of winning powerball is lower. Still rather play powerball than russian roulette.

      --

      My wife's sketchblog Blob[p]: Gastrono-me
    5. Re:Other cases of HIV immunity by kirinyaga · · Score: 1
      Exactly what I thought. I heard of these prostitutes too. This guy is not the first to resist to HIV and probably have the same kind of resistance. It isn't a matter of "saving the world".

      By the way does anyone know if we have even the slightest idea of the maximum lethality a human disease could possibly have ? I mean, we can say for sure that, whatever the disease, the human immunity system is such that there will always be survivors. But does someone ever tried to do some probability calculation about that, and/or is it ever possible ?

      --
      Kirinyaga
    6. Re:Other cases of HIV immunity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We muthafkin brathas & sistas is a superiar race!

    7. Re:Other cases of HIV immunity by cnlohfin3109 · · Score: 1

      hmm... Gambia prostitutes resist HIV, and was it said somewhere that Andrew Stimpsons partner had HIV? (read that in another comment not sure of its accuracy) maybe that says something about high exposure rates, of course thats probably more a correlation then cause, like ice cream causing murders (hot days murder rates go up).

    8. Re:Other cases of HIV immunity by Peldor · · Score: 1
      They also thought they could use these women for their research.

      1. Fat research budget
      2. Prostitutes who test negative for HIV.
      3. (What do you think comes next?)

    9. Re:Other cases of HIV immunity by jurt1235 · · Score: 1

      Uh, spending the research budget with these women in small quantities at the time?

      --

      My wife's sketchblog Blob[p]: Gastrono-me
    10. Re:Other cases of HIV immunity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except, there is a difference between 'resisting' and 'surviving'. Yes, there have been more than a few folks documented to have been exposed to HIV without contracting it. But this may be (one of) the first documented to have contracted HIV, but overcome it.

      The difference is an immune system that can fight off the first few invaders vs one that managed to fight them off even after they'd multiplied million-fold.

    11. Re:Other cases of HIV immunity by penthouseplayah · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and some of these immunne prostitutes were out of "work" for 6 months, when they came back they got infected almost immediately. The hypothesis is that they've acquired immunity, but to stay immune they need exposure to the virus often.

    12. Re:Other cases of HIV immunity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A bit of a digression, but in a recent documentary I watched, one such African HIV-positive/AIDs-immune prostitute they interviewed had sexual contact with approx 10 men a day. She works every day.

      A 1000 jobs a year might be a very conservative estimate.

      I consider myself fairly jaded/worldly, but that figure just blew my mind.

    13. Re:Other cases of HIV immunity by jurt1235 · · Score: 1

      You have a link to some info on the net on this subject?

      --

      My wife's sketchblog Blob[p]: Gastrono-me
    14. Re:Other cases of HIV immunity by AuMatar · · Score: 1

      YOu're confusing the variables. Lets say the chance of catching aids is a. The probability a given john has aids is p. The odds of being safe from a given john with aids is (1-a). The number of johns with aids is 1000p (we're assuming 1000 total johns per year). The odds of her being safe over n johns is (1-a)^n. Therefor her total odds of not being infected are (1-a)^(1000p)

      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
  35. HIV is getting milder by circletimessquare · · Score: 3, Interesting

    it is not in the interest of any disease to kill its host. the disease wants your body to replicate it and spread it. a dead body for a disease is a dead end

    so what happens after the initial explosion of cases is that a disease evolves to limit mortality: the germs that get passed on are the ones that are able to somehow keep the host alive as long as possible to continue the spread. the point is to commandeer the body to replicate as many copies as possible and spread it for as long as possible, but not to sap the body's resources so much as to kill the host. the HIV you could get today can kill you, but not as fast and with not as much certainty as the HIV you could get in 1985

    killer pandemics happen because a virus or bacteria stumbled by mistake into the good fortune of easy spread amongst a population of animals, the mortality is just an unwanted side effect. this is true of the spanish flu of 1918 too: what once could kill you easily, well you yourself probably got that exact same strain sometime in your life, and it was probably a mild case of the flu or sniffles

    this attenuation is true of all diseases. but don't let it fill you with false confidence. the flu or HIV can still kill you, easily. just a little less easily

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:HIV is getting milder by lostlogic · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You're confused -- HIV is already a slow killer, and that is why it's scary. Death by HIV generally takes years, and it can go undetected for much of that time. Its speed-of-mortality is not what is stopping HIV from becoming epidemic, the fact that it is not yet airborne is what's stopping it. See comments in the Bird Flu Pandemic article for more on this, but to summarize, a disease that kills its host before it has a chance to spread will become milder until it has a better chance to spread, just by natural germ selection. Even _if_ HIV's mortality is higher than ideal, the long lifespan of the infected means that there is no strong / fast reason for it to evolve weaker.

      --
      --Brandon
    2. Re:HIV is getting milder by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      And you have proof of this?

      There is no reason for HIV to become "milder". It is a long term infection which provides its host ample time to reproduce and begin raising a child. It is spread only through close contact and, most likely, repeated contact (See the study comparing infection rates between Africans and S.E.Asians).

      To be honest, with the 5 to 20 year dormancy, HIV is rather well suited for a host with a reproductive cycle that starts at in the early to mid teens. It would be perfect for a creature who had a life expectancy of up to mid thirties, begins reproducing at around 15 and has repeated sexual contact with a number of different people.

      Kind of like prehistoric man.

      --
      There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
    3. Re:HIV is getting milder by connah0047 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Are you suggesting coconuts migrate?

    4. Re:HIV is getting milder by MudDude · · Score: 3, Funny

      Interesting. If it is in the disease's best interest to keep the host alive for maximum proliferation, than with each evolutionary cycle, the virus will protect the host more and more.

      This means that, within time, virusses will evolve into the Means for Man to achieve Immortality in some kind of twisted mutual-benefit relationship. (mutualism)

      I should write Science Fiction books.

      Regards,

      --
      You don't need to see my .sig. This isn't the .sig you're looking for...
    5. Re:HIV is getting milder by killjoe · · Score: 0, Troll

      "it is not in the interest of any disease to kill its host. the disease wants your body to replicate it and spread it. a dead body for a disease is a dead end"

      That's true for diseases that are not designed by men.

      --
      evil is as evil does
    6. Re:HIV is getting milder by lightweave · · Score: 1

      Maybe this is intersting to a moderator, but that doesn't make it more true. The desease doesnt care about the host, because teh host means not much to it. IF the host manages to kill off teh desease creating population it becomes an interest of the desease to not kill it off. If the host is killed and the desease population can spread just as effeciently there is no pressure on the desease to preserve it's host. So only deseases which require the host to continue spreading it's population will mutate into less deathly deseases over time.

    7. Re:HIV is getting milder by Inaffect · · Score: 1
      "That's true for diseases that are not designed by men."

      *activates independent thought alarms*
      http://www.onlinejournal.com/health/102605Mazza/10 2605mazza.html

    8. Re:HIV is getting milder by TheoGB · · Score: 1

      There is no reason for HIV to become "milder"

      Actually it has already become less virulent according to my friend who has worked in this sort of field. I can't actually provide you with evidence links but it is natural for a virus like HIV/AIDS to do this as the longer it takes before it's killing onset the more chance it has to damage the population.

    9. Re:HIV is getting milder by StrawberryFrog · · Score: 5, Insightful

      To be honest, with the 5 to 20 year dormancy, HIV is rather well suited for a host with a reproductive cycle that starts at in the early to mid teens.

      Except that babies are usually infected by their mothers. And then die well before reproductive age.

      --

      My Karma: ran over your Dogma
      StrawberryFrog

    10. Re:HIV is getting milder by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 1

      From what I remember the incidence of infant infection has actual proved to be lower than expected, but who knows. There are a lot of variable in the whole thing and I haven't been keeping up with it as I should.

      --
      There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
    11. Re:HIV is getting milder by jaiyen · · Score: 1

      And you have proof of this?

      I'm not sure there's any definitive proof yet, but there's certainly some evidence that way. This BBC article talks about the data showing HIV getting weaker over the last 20 years http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4290300.stm

      Researcher Dr Eric Arts said: "This was a very preliminary study, but we did find a pretty striking observation in that the viruses from the 2000s are much weaker than the viruses from the eighties.

      "Obviously this virus is still causing death, although it may be causing death at a slower rate of progression now. Maybe in another 50 to 60 years we might see this virus not causing death."

    12. Re:HIV is getting milder by nine-times · · Score: 2, Informative
      ...so what happens after the initial explosion of cases is that a disease evolves to limit mortality: the germs that get passed on are the ones that are able to somehow keep the host alive as long as possible to continue the spread...

      I've wondered about this before. Wouldn't the ideal of a virus, then, be to reach a benign equilibrium with the host? Some sort of interaction that left the host infected, but symptom-free (or nearly so)? Does the virus, then, become just another hunk of protein our body creates?

      How would this change the way we think about viruses and disease? What might this mean about our own evolution? Might we be passing benign 'viruses' around to each other all the time, but without noticing because either there are no symptoms or very few?

      Forgive me if these are stupid questions, but it's not really my field.

    13. Re:HIV is getting milder by Cyn · · Score: 2, Informative

      This is ridiculous. The disease isn't stepping back, looking at the larger picture, and saying "damn, I'm killing them too fast - I'll never infect them all at this rate".

      There are two* main reasons why diseases 'get milder' - evolution and antibodies.
            evolution: There are multiple forms of the disease. Those that don't kill a host as quickly have more chance to be exposed to others and continue to exist, those that kill too quickly (for the most part) die out.
            antibodies: Our bodies create antibodies after an initial exposure to something, so that next time we recognize it sooner and can defend against it that much better.**

      * that I can come up with off the top of my head.
      ** gross oversimplification

      --
      cyn, free software and *nix operating systems enthusiast.
    14. Re:HIV is getting milder by TheoGB · · Score: 1

      It's a shame the parent isn't modded higher because having read that 'AIDS is a government creation' piece I now want to know all the contrary evidence so it ceases to scare me as much.

    15. Re:HIV is getting milder by xutopia · · Score: 1

      IANAG (geneticist). I don't think he has proof but he does have a point. From history we see lots of diseases come on very strongly until it then reaches its "apogée" (influenza, common cold in North America ~1600, syphillis post columbus, etc...). Wether it be that humans are adapting (like chimps have to SIV) or that the disease is simply softening up to be better at spreading is unclear. His hypothesis does make sense though.

    16. Re:HIV is getting milder by StrawberryFrog · · Score: 1

      "usually" seems to be wrong: "The scientific community tells us that HIV passes to the infant before or during delivery in 20 percent of infants born to HIV-infected women. "

      But the scope of the problem is massive.

      --

      My Karma: ran over your Dogma
      StrawberryFrog

    17. Re:HIV is getting milder by Idarubicin · · Score: 1
      "it is not in the interest of any disease to kill its host. the disease wants your body to replicate it and spread it. a dead body for a disease is a dead end"
      That's true for diseases that are not designed by men.

      I'm giving up the ability to moderate on this thread because Slashdot lacks a (-1, Paranoid Conspiracy) mod. Please.

      By the way, even if we grant–for the moment and for the sake of argument–the assumption that HIV was an engineered virus, once it is in the wild it will evolve through natural selective processes just like any other pathogen. Strains that result in less mortality and longer symptom-free incubation periods will be favoured, because they will be less likely to be detected (and cured or isolated) and will have more time to be spread around by an unwitting (happy, healthy, sexually active) host. Long-term, there will also be a selection process that works on the hosts—again, individuals that don't die and don't develop severe symptoms are of benefit to the virus.

      --
      ~Idarubicin
    18. Re:HIV is getting milder by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 1

      >ones that are able to somehow keep the host alive as long as possible

      Change that to "as long as necessary". If people are being packed tightly onto trains and shipped long distances to meet other people in crowded camps, then a fast-moving virus has the advantage even if it kills a host within 24 hours. In 1918 troops and refugees were moving around like that and the 1918 flu killed within hours. It would have outcompeted any other strain that left its hosts alive by reproducing more slowly.

      Also, what if the pathogen doesn't need a living host? One well-publiced nasty can turn into spores and sit in the soil between hosts. If dead cows rot into the ground then it wouldn't reproduce any better by keeping hosts alive.

    19. Re:HIV is getting milder by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 1

      cool thanks

      --
      There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
    20. Re:HIV is getting milder by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      Except that babies are usually infected by their mothers.

      Except that's not true at all. The highest estimate is 33%, which is not "usually."

      Estimates of the proportion of children born to women with HIV infection who are themselves infected with HIV vary, ranging from 14% to 33% in studies performed in the United States and Europe before the new knowledge about treatment was disseminated. More recent estimates of the transmission rate, reflecting the increasing use of protective treatment, range from 3% to 10%.

    21. Re:HIV is getting milder by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 1
      The fact that "usually" is wrong adds credence to my original post.

      In a community where the prevalence of HIV in pregnant women is extremely high (20 percent) and 20 percent of infants are infected before or during delivery, about 4 percent of all infants in the community would be infected before or during delivery (20 percent of population x 20 percent of infant infection before or during delivery = 4 percent transmission rate).


      The scope of the problem? 4% is not, IMHO, massive. It is regretable and sad. But, How big is that actually. Compare it to say Malaria. With infection rates of upto 70% in some African countries and a mortality rate between 20% and 30%, Malaria causes more child deaths than there are HIV infections. Yet there is more concern about HIV than malaria.

      HIV is a "celebrity disease", garnering media attention that is greater than it's actual due. Part is that it has a transmission vector that is "outrageous". Part is that one can not tell who may be infectious. Part is that it is "always fatal". But, it is responsible for only about 5% of all deaths world wide per year. Lower Respiratory Infections are responsible for almost 7%.

      If you haven't guessed, to me HIV is just another disease and not as bad as some others.
      --
      There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
    22. Re:HIV is getting milder by killjoe · · Score: 1

      There is no need to worry. No govt would ever create a virus and test in africans. It's outside the realm of possibility.

      --
      evil is as evil does
  36. Re:First? What about the African Prostitutes et.al by ilitirit · · Score: 5, Informative

    I leave myself open to corrections

    Addendum: Prostitutes lose HIV immunity

    A group of prostitutes thought to be immune to HIV have now become infected, causing dismay to scientists hoping to develop an Aids vaccine.

  37. So is his name by DagdaMor · · Score: 1, Insightful

    J.D. Shapely???

    --
    All is fair in love and war... ...as long as I'm not losing!
    1. Re:So is his name by kaos.geo · · Score: 1

      I thought that being slashdot I would find more than 1 reference to Shapeley...

      If you take into account "Ramona" Kurzweil as the real life Idoru.... Is then Gibson the new Nostradamus??

      Regardind TFA.... The man should cooperate, least he is afraid of being tested again and be found out positive.

  38. Re:This guy wants compensation?! MOD UP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    *sigh* who did you loose?

  39. Complimentary to the article: African hookers by NRAdude · · Score: 2, Informative

    I read about African prostitutes being immune to HIV. Apparently, a verry small number of people down in only the hundredths of people exposed to HIV, are naturally resistant. Instinctively I remember that those African prostitutes agreed to be "studied" by the UNITED STATES pharmaceutical corporations to know the peculiarities of their immunity to HIV, they mysteriously lost their immunities to HIV and fell immune. There were around a hundred prostitutes to volunteer, and they all all lost their immunity. I couldn't find the exact article, but this article of HIV immunity in the Year 1998, has some of that same information with prostitutes in Thailand and Kenya.

    "Kings need to know these things."

    --
    without prejudice
    1. Re:Complimentary to the article: African hookers by BoneFlower · · Score: 1

      Analogy(mentioned elsewhere)

      Man runs into a brick wall. Brick wall stays put.

      Man runs into brick wall. Brick wall stays put.

      Man runs into brick wall. Brick wall stays put.

      Man runs into brick wall. Brick wall stays put.

      (repeat many times)

      Man runs into brick wall. Brick wall falls over.

  40. Obligatory... by Llywelyn · · Score: 4, Funny

    But does he weigh more than a duck?

    --
    Integrate Keynote and LaTeX
    1. Re:Obligatory... by slavemowgli · · Score: 4, Funny

      European or African duck?

      --
      quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
    2. Re:Obligatory... by Bob+Cat+-+NYMPHS · · Score: 2, Funny

      And does he swallow?

    3. Re:Obligatory... by Hlewagastir · · Score: 1

      Who are you who are so wise in the ways of science?

    4. Re:Obligatory... by utexaspunk · · Score: 1

      African ducks are non-migratory.

    5. Re:Obligatory... by TheLetterPsy · · Score: 1

      Small rocks!!

    6. Re:Obligatory... by KC7JHO · · Score: 1

      Hummm... Let's see, A duck will float... I know let's see if he can float. If he can then he is not a witch and the Duck cured him of HIV!

    7. Re:Obligatory... by elknco1 · · Score: 1

      if i had mod points, i'd mod you up.. but i don't =/

    8. Re:Obligatory... by failedlogic · · Score: 1

      The real question is "What is the Airspeed Velocity of an Unladen Swallow?"

  41. Please consider this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Has anyone really stopped to consider the statistical problems here? How many people have potentially "cured" themselves of HIV without ever knowing they were infected? How many cases never turned into part of the statistics on infection rate vs fatality rate by never being detected and never presenting the symptoms? It is like finding 10,000 dead bodies in an area that all suffered the same death and assuming that whatever killed them was 100% fatal just by the sheer number, however, without some investigation into what the original population was, how many were infected, etc, the assumtion is horribly flawed. Let's not jump to conclusions about him being the potential saviour of HIV/AIDS patience. Given his apparent attitude about not going back to help, his lip service about wanting to help, and the issue of seeking compensation...he is hardly deserving of any of that type of attention beyond being disected to check his biology out.

  42. Everything old is new again by Kawahee · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It's nothing 'new', there have been reports from Africa of this happening ever since the outbreak, but because of their developing nation status they haven't had the technology to confirm it, and nobody's bothered investigating.

    It's sort of sad that it's taken this long to confirm.

    --
    I'll subscribe to Slashdot when I see a month without a dupe, a typo, or an article the "editors" didn't read.
  43. CCR5 mutation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    The reason some people are resistant to the plague, and HIV, is due to a mutation in the CCR5 gene. This gene encodes an immune system cell surface protein that HIV uses to bind to the cell. People missing this gene generally can't get infected with HIV.

    This has been known for quite some time and is not news. This guy most likely has the CCR5 mutation. Lucky for him, but it ain't a cure for the other 90% of the population.

    1. Re:CCR5 mutation by Antifuse · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Ummm... if people with this gene mutation cannot get infected with HIV, how was his first test positive?

    2. Re:CCR5 mutation by afaik_ianal · · Score: 2, Interesting

      However that doesn't explain how someone can get infected, and then cure. If he had that mutation, then he would never have got infected in the first place.

      Assuming all the tests were correct, I'd say this is something completely different.

    3. Re:CCR5 mutation by alragh · · Score: 3, Informative

      Initial positive tests indicate the presence of antibodies to the virus which only requires HIV to be present in the system, not necessarily infecting it, his boyfriend was HIV positive so repeated exposure could have kept the viral load high enough to show up in subsequent DNA amplification tests?

      Not likely but...

    4. Re:CCR5 mutation by Ex-MislTech · · Score: 1

      In the research concerning the plague, they found that ppl with 2 markers were totally
      immune to the plague, and ppl with a single marker CCR5 delta 32 could get sick and then recover .

      They also could die .

      It would tend to explain why some ppl are now living with AIDs for over 10 years .

      Ex-MislTech

      --
      google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
    5. Re:CCR5 mutation by xsbellx · · Score: 1

      Just curious, ever had a cold?

      --
      If VISTA is the answer, you didn't understand the question
    6. Re:CCR5 mutation by Suppafly · · Score: 1

      Tests aren't ever 100% accurate and aids tests have a known percentage of false positives.. generally if you test positive for hiv they have several other tests afterwards to confirm the diagnosis.

  44. And what is wrong with compensation?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you were diagnosed as having AIDS and then latter told you didn't have it wouldn't your first instinct be that the original test was wrong. It also mentions that he felt suicidal when he found out he had HIV. If it was a misdiagnosis and he was clinically depressed as a result I don't think it is terrible for him to expect some form of compensation.

    Regarding the non cooperation. As others have pointed out he has also stated that he will help out. I think the issue here is that he did not want to go back to hospital right away and furthermore wanted to go to another hospital (which is perfectly understandable).

    Don't be so quick to paint the guy as the Devil incarnate. He has been through a pretty unusual and stressful experience.

  45. Re:First? What about the African Prostitutes et.al by Senjutsu · · Score: 2, Interesting

    From his link:

    "The most probable explanation for the finding of HIV-specific CTL, able to kill virus-infected cells, in apparently uninfected but repeatedly HIV-exposed women is that they have been immunized by exposure to HIV," notes Dr. Sarah Rowland-Jones of the Molecular Immunology Group at Radcliffe Hospital in Oxford.

    That would seem to contradict your genetic theory.

  46. I don't believe it... by TropicalCoder · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Without further testing, there is no reason to believe this story. There is no precedent for this. The prostitutes from Africa supposedly remained free of HIV infection in spite of exposure, while they are saying this man had been infected, but was cured spontaneously. It's one of those stories we would all like to believe to be true, and therefore deserves the greatest amount of skepticism.

  47. He turned me into a newt! by HoneyBunchesOfGoats · · Score: 2, Funny

    I got better...

  48. Some explanations... by John+Leeming · · Score: 3, Interesting

    First, his wanting compensation was his initial reaction...you are told you have HIV, an incurable disease, and you plan what remains of your life. Then, the doctor says, "Ooops! We're wrong! You're going to live!"

    Immediate reaction: Sue the moron who screwed up your test. And anyone who says otherwise is a liar, because you know we all would do just that in any typical situation, right?

    However, in his likely initial investigation, with solicitor in tow, he finds out that, DAMN! He is cured after all!

    WTF?

    Now...stop and consider the situation.

    He's cured. He's alive. Barring suicide or accident, he's now the world's documented repository for The Cure for AIDS.

    He's facing a life sentence now, literally, of being drained of his blood on a regular basis, having it shipped all over the world, and essentially being better protected than George W. Bush visiting a gay cowboy coke bar.

    Unless and until they can isolate his factor, whether blood, genetic, mutational or whatever, he is going to be a prisoner of his condition...and Ghod help him if some pharmaceutical corporate patents his blood and makes him pay up or give up.

    Whether he wants to cooperate or not is going to be moot...sooner or later, he will be drafted/conscripted/incarcerated under some obscure public safety law and turned into State property in the UK/SCotland. If he were in the US, he'd be stamped "PROPERTY OF HALLIBURTON" and turned into a rich person's personal inoculation center.

    He may _want_ to cooperate and be sure everyone who needs to be is cured.

    Reality, on the other hand, is likely smashing him in the face and making him well aware of what the future holds for him.

    His only hope is that we find others like him, or find out it's a relatively simple procedure to duplicate what his body is doing and mass-produce it...and even then, it's highly doubtful that the medical companies will ever let him see a penny for it.

    Too cynical? Too bad.

    --
    "Eustace? Eustace? Are you there? Are you there?" = John Leeming
    1. Re:Some explanations... by MudDude · · Score: 1

      Explanation 2:

      - they screwed up the first test, and he never had HIV to begin with.

      Regards,

      --
      You don't need to see my .sig. This isn't the .sig you're looking for...
    2. Re:Some explanations... by Scarblac · · Score: 1

      In fact, it seems to me he could be rather rich rather quickly by selling his services (making small blood samples available for research) for a pretty high price.

      --
      I believe posters are recognized by their sig. So I made one.
    3. Re:Some explanations... by CosmeticLobotamy · · Score: 1

      Since this guy might not have had it in the first place and might be cooperating, I'm going to abstract slightly so as not to be mean to a guy who might already be doing what he can to help. So this isn't regarding the article guy, just a guy who is what the article claims.

      This hypothetical guy, doing what you said, is a dick. First of all, get retested, buddy. Make sure it wasn't the second one that was a fluke before you find yourself a new boy/girlfriend. Second, maybe my experience was atypical, but having weekly blood extraction is a minor annoyance at worst. I bet they'll even come to him and give him some cash for his time.

      Ghod help him if some pharmaceutical corporate patents his blood and makes him pay up or give up.

      That's just dumb.

      he will be drafted/conscripted/incarcerated under some obscure public safety law and turned into State property in the UK/SCotland

      Possibly, and that's grey area for the government that others, I'm sure, would be happy to argue about, but he could avoid that by not being a dick in the first place. And I sympathise, but if there's a reasonable chance your arm contains a method for saving 40 million lives and you won't sit down and make a fist, you're a dick.

      it's highly doubtful that the medical companies will ever let him see a penny for it.

      That's true. Kinda sucks. At least they should give the guy a big cardboard check with 5 or 6 zeroes.

    4. Re:Some explanations... by Captain_Chaos · · Score: 1

      Too cynical? Too bad.

      Dude, you watch too many X-Files reruns...

    5. Re:Some explanations... by Shano · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Better yet, they screwed up the first test, he never had HIV to begin with, and they reckon they can avoid a malpractice suit and get lots of juicy research money by claiming the tests were accurate.

      Maybe I'm just getting cynical in my old age. Working in a university will do that to you.

    6. Re:Some explanations... by VJ42 · · Score: 1

      UK/SCotland

      Scotland is in the UK, and has been since the Act of Union and has been since 1707 when it merged the parlimets of Scotland & England (Which had between 1536 and 1543 annexed Wales by previous Acts of Union). Later acts of Union annexed Ireland, now only Northern Ireland is part of the UK, along with England, Scotland and Wales; All of whom are fiercly indipendant, and remain seperate nations with different laws and legal systems.

      --
      If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
    7. Re:Some explanations... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Moore_(human_pat ent) John Moore UCLA didnt tell him that they were going to make millions off his unique cells...

    8. Re:Some explanations... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or you could check the info provided and see that they re-ran both tests, with dna testing to be sure. They still need to do more invasive tests (so low levels is undetectable, or really gone) and there is some concern if the strain was simply a week strain.

      And of course the old IT testing response if a bug mysteriously goes away.

      "here, lets inject you with more HIV and see if it happens again".

    9. Re:Some explanations... by dascandy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      > Immediate reaction: Sue the moron who screwed up your test

      You must be from the USA.

    10. Re:Some explanations... by mykdavies · · Score: 1

      Wales does not have its own legal system, it falls under English law.

      --
      The world has changed and we all have become metal men.
    11. Re:Some explanations... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's facing a life sentence now, literally, of being drained of his blood on a regular basis

      Like Those Who Must Be Kept? Sooooo Anne Rice!

    12. Re:Some explanations... by BTWR · · Score: 1
      he'd be stamped "PROPERTY OF HALLIBURTON"

      First off, Halliburton isn't in Pharmaceuticals. Second, I don't care if Pfizer, Merck or some other company makes billions with the cure/vaccine. Let them. Profits and the ability to make profits have led to chemotherapies, asthma medications, beta-blockers, cholesterol reducers, and hell, even the "cure" for ED. Let them have their 10 years of profits, then in 2018 or whatever it'll be generic and can sell all over the world. Or, in the meantime, if there IS a pill that costs $50 a pop to cure AIDS, I'm sure Bill Gates would chip in a lot, and Bono would perform a dozen concerts and raise a few billion in no time.

    13. Re:Some explanations... by VJ42 · · Score: 1

      This is largely true, however Wales relatively recently got an 'assembley' which has law-making powers indipendant of the UK parliment.

      --
      If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
    14. Re:Some explanations... by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      My theory is that the aids were cured by the aliens who wanted to protect his zombie hybrid alien baby.

      And that zombie hybrid alien baby? Salma Hayek.

      --
      It's been a long time.
  49. Subsequent tests... by PeteDotNu · · Score: 2, Funny

    Upon performing further tests, they subsequently returned results of positive, negative, flegative, bogative, rogative and spigative.

    --
    My other processor is big-endian.
  50. Sure, let's blame the victim... by Llywelyn · · Score: 1

    Obviously he had unprotected sex with someone somewhere

    So has most of the non /. adult population of the world

    Besides, it's not even necessarily true. I'll agree that it is the most likely, but it doesn't take much of a hole viral particles to slip through a condom.

    And yeah, this is a bitter post. But think about it, this asshole's been spared by the cosmos while a million innocent children in Africa will die in the next few years.

    ...and I eat well every day and am finicky about food when children are starving all over the world. Oh no, the horror.

    Sorry if that came across as callous, but in almost any situation you can find someone worse off than you are and someone better off. I just went through a bloody hurricane, the last thing I need is for people to be telling me that "oh, but that wasn't so bad compared to that earthquake in Pakistan" or "It is your fault for living below sea level."

    --
    Integrate Keynote and LaTeX
    1. Re:Sure, let's blame the victim... by Propagandhi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ..and I eat well every day and am finicky about food when children are starving all over the world. Oh no, the horror.

      But you don't have the ability to end world hunger. This guy could potentially advance our knowledge of the AIDS virus. Instead of doing that, though, he cries to himself about the "emotional trauma" of his experience, sues someone, and totally ignores the fact that millions of people are affected by this disease. Moreover, those millions of people weren't infected because of a choice they made, but because of a choice their parents made! But those million's suffering apparently pales in insignificance next to this guy's trauma....

      My point wasn't addressing the inherent inequality in our reality, it was addressing this guy's selfish and stupid behavior. Nevermind the fact that he does nothing, it's that he does nothing and sues someone! He knows first hand the trauma of this disease, but he's so self centered that he can't look out at the world and see all the good he could do with a little self sacrifice.

    2. Re:Sure, let's blame the victim... by cowbutt · · Score: 1
      Obviously he had unprotected sex with someone somewhere

      So has most of the non /. adult population of the world

      Besides, it's not even necessarily true. I'll agree that it is the most likely, but it doesn't take much of a hole viral particles to slip through a condom.

      ...or, for that matter, not to think of taking some known-to-be-clean needles with you on holiday to an area with prolific AIDS/HIV, in case you need medical treatment.

      Fact is, we know nothing about how this person contracted HIV, and it's an unsafe assumption that he picked it up by shagging around.

    3. Re:Sure, let's blame the victim... by Llywelyn · · Score: 1

      But you don't have the ability to end world hunger.



      <p>By that standard, this guy lacks even the potential you are talking about. Let's assume, for a moment, that it turns out something is there and some company is willing to throw the billions of dollars into development into this. Some fifteen-to-twenty years down the road it <em>might</em> lead to results that could <em>potentially</em> help <em>some</em> people.</p>

      <p>Spreading it around the world is not free, and not everyone is going to respond to it, even if it does work. This guy can't single-handedly provide a miracle for HIV anymore than I can stop world hunger. I could donate money to the cause (hello Harding's Ratchet Effect), or eat more frugally and send the proceeds, and save potentially many people from starvation or death from a lack of iodine in their diet or similar.</p>

      <p>You could as well, so long as we are on the topic.</p>

      <p>Sure, this guy is in a unique position compared to us, but you are asking him to "give himself up to the cause." </p>

      <p><em> Moreover, those millions of people weren't infected because of a choice they made, but because of a choice their parents made! But those million's suffering apparently pales in insignificance next to this guy's trauma....</em></p>

      Earthquake in Pakistan vs. Hurricane in New Orleans. Which one should I care about more?

      I'll give you a hint: my hometown is not anywhere near Pakistan.

      <p><em> Nevermind the fact that he does nothing, it's that he does nothing and sues someone! He knows first hand the trauma of this disease, but he's so self centered that he can't look out at the world and see all the good he could do with a little self sacrifice.</em></p>

      Then create a fund to compensate him sufficiently that he will be willing to participate, and donate to that fund yourself.
      --
      Integrate Keynote and LaTeX
    4. Re:Sure, let's blame the victim... by Llywelyn · · Score: 1

      I utterly botched the formatting mode on the last one (must... learn... to... preview...).

      But you don't have the ability to end world hunger.

      By that standard, this guy lacks even the potential you are talking about. Let's assume, for a moment, that it turns out something is there and some company is willing to throw the billions of dollars into development into this. Some fifteen-to-twenty years down the road it might lead to results that could potentially help some people.

      Spreading it around the world is not free, and not everyone is going to respond to it, even if it does work. This guy can't single-handedly provide a miracle for HIV anymore than I can stop world hunger. I could donate money to the cause (hello Harding's Ratchet Effect), or eat more frugally and send the proceeds, and save potentially many people from starvation or death from a lack of iodine in their diet or similar.

      You could as well, so long as we are on the topic.

      Sure, this guy is in a unique position compared to us, but you are asking him to "give himself up to the cause."

      Moreover, those millions of people weren't infected because of a choice they made, but because of a choice their parents made! But those million's suffering apparently pales in insignificance next to this guy's trauma....

      Earthquake in Pakistan vs. Hurricane in New Orleans. Which one should I care about more?

      I'll give you a hint: my hometown is not anywhere near Pakistan.

      Nevermind the fact that he does nothing, it's that he does nothing and sues someone! He knows first hand the trauma of this disease, but he's so self centered that he can't look out at the world and see all the good he could do with a little self sacrifice.

      Then create a fund to compensate him sufficiently that he will be willing to participate and donate to that fund yourself.

      --
      Integrate Keynote and LaTeX
    5. Re:Sure, let's blame the victim... by vidarh · · Score: 4, Insightful
      But you don't have the ability to end world hunger. This guy could potentially advance our knowledge of the AIDS virus. Instead of doing that, though, he cries to himself about the "emotional trauma" of his experience, sues someone, and totally ignores the fact that millions of people are affected by this disease.

      First of all, nobody as far as I have seen has claimed he actually sued someone, only that he "sought compensation", which may very well include nothing more than writing a letter to the appropriate authorities stating his case and asking for it to be considered.

      Second, have you personally verified that that is even accurate reporting?

      Third, do you know his reason was "emotional trauma" and not for instance real economic impacts caused by the original diagnosis (such as cashing in his pension and spending money left and right because he had good reason to believe he didn't need it - for what you know he could have given his entire pension to charity)? The article also mentions him becoming suicidal and depressed, which may very well have affected his work and had economic impacts.

      You're making unsubstantiated claims about this guys motivations which you have no basis for.

      My point wasn't addressing the inherent inequality in our reality, it was addressing this guy's selfish and stupid behavior. Nevermind the fact that he does nothing, it's that he does nothing and sues someone! He knows first hand the trauma of this disease, but he's so self centered that he can't look out at the world and see all the good he could do with a little self sacrifice.

      Quote from the article: "He has told the papers he would do anything he could to help find a cure."

      So how exactly is it you know that he is doing nothing? You are again assuming one part of the article is true without any corroborating evidence while ignoring another part of the article and assuming the worst.

      I'm not saying you can't be right, merely that you are jumping to an awful lot of conclusions with essentially no evidence.

    6. Re:Sure, let's blame the victim... by nuggz · · Score: 1

      I just went through a bloody hurricane, the last thing I need is for people to be telling me that "oh, but that wasn't so bad compared to that earthquake in Pakistan" or "It is your fault for living below sea level."

      But both of those are true. Pakistan has been unable to provide adequate emergency aid to the survivors.
      Quite a different situation than people suing the government because they only got a few thousand in emergency handouts.

      Additionally it IS your fault you live below sea level, I give the same answer to people who live in dead mining towns in the middle of nowhere.

      I might be a bit jealous, you get to live in a nice southern area, generally better weather and such. But every time I hear of a hurricane or other natural disaster I'm reminded how nice it is to live in a less disaster prone area.

    7. Re:Sure, let's blame the victim... by Gaewyn+L+Knight · · Score: 1

      It is safe to assume where he got it from because the article itself states that he was still having unprotected sex with his infected partner.

      --
      Telcos have alot of dark fibre in the States. Most people assume that's optical fibre...but it's actually moral fibre.
    8. Re:Sure, let's blame the victim... by cowbutt · · Score: 1
      The BBC article linked from the editorial doesn't.

      And besides, I took that as meaning that after he was diagnosed as HIV+, he had unprotected sex with his infected partner. That doesn't say anything about what he was doing before being diagnosed.

    9. Re:Sure, let's blame the victim... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The preview button is your friend.

    10. Re:Sure, let's blame the victim... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I love how everyone assumes that this man's blood or DNA contains the "KEY," a way of curing HIV. I'd say that even if he truly did defeat the AIDS virus, then it is still quite unlikely that it wasn't just a lucky break. There may be something to learn from his case about the virus.... or upon testing, they might find nothing significant.

    11. Re:Sure, let's blame the victim... by i_am_not_a_bomba · · Score: 1

      "Third, do you know his reason was "emotional trauma" and not for instance real economic impacts "

      Ahh refreshing, I always know i'm on an american website when an argument for economics is given more importance than mental and physical well being.

      I am currently experiencing 'economic trauma' and much prefer it to the 'emotional trauma' i experienced 5 months ago when i was diagnosed with a heart condition and placed on a cocktail of drugs.

      Not having a go at you, it just shouldn't be neccassary to make an economic argument to empathise with someone who has been wronged.

  51. Re:Patent...MOD UP!!!! by xyvimur · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I know that it is not funny... It is like in many sci-fi... I liked the quote from Jonny Mnemonic - I don't remember it exactly, but the gist was: "The issue is not to heal people completly, the issue is to treat them and earn money".

    But if we speak about funny ideas - the man seems to be willing to contribute to the research - so maybe he should state that all the results will be widely available (OpenSource license or something like that???)

  52. An amazing achievement by TempeTerra · · Score: 2, Funny

    A 25 yr old British man could be the first people in the world to have cured himself of the deadly HIV virus.

    Now, curing HIV is all well and good but I think we're overlooking the real achievement here. These man - with no aid from the scientific establishment - have become more than one person!

    --
    .evom ton seod gis eht
  53. HIV Virus by nephridium · · Score: 1, Informative

    I don't want to nitpick here, but it just hurts my eyes when I see Phrases such as "HIV virus" or "LCD display". HIV is an acronym for "human immunodeficiency virus". You could also say "AIDS virus" instead.

    --


    And when you gaze long enough into the code, the code will also gaze into you.
    1. Re:HIV Virus by ShaunC1000 · · Score: 1

      NIC card

    2. Re:HIV Virus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I bought a NIC card earlier with money that I got from the ATM machine with my PIN number, so I could get on Slashdot to read about the HIV virus that causes AIDS syndrome. I'm using GNU Unix and running the KDE environment on my P4 pentium processor.

    3. Re:HIV Virus by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Get back to work!

      [from your boss - the manager of the department of redundacy department]

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    4. Re:HIV Virus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, it's damned annoying. I just respond with "you mean the human immunodeficiency VIRUS VIRUS?" which gets either a blank look or an apology.

  54. +1 Social Engineering Hack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey, baby, I don't mean to brag, or anything. But I'm immune to HIV, and I had a vasectomy last year too...would you like to come back to my apartment and listen to some albums?

    1. Re:+1 Social Engineering Hack by denis-The-menace · · Score: 1

      sure

      --
      Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
  55. test reliability by holdp · · Score: 0

    In all reports of this I have seen not one, not one, has said anything about the false positive and false negative rates of the test. Nor any report on the number of repeat tests.

  56. Good for him... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are several strains of HIV and it keeps mutating, but if it does help to get more knowledge about this virus then that is good.
    Btw: HIV is nothing to worry about - we all gonna die to cancer!

  57. he should patent his blood by Edmund+Blackadder · · Score: 0, Redundant

    before someone else does it.

    1. Re:he should patent his blood by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, after his trip to the US in late 2002 the department of homeland (in)security decided to take swabs of all he had to offer. Currently, great AIDs heroes are continuing to cash in on their HIV and yet have been cured for almost 3 whole years now. According to reports in the Queer Times money is now being used for frilly underwear, tight t-shirts and leather winter wear, reports of moustaches have been made but are as-of-yet unconfirmed.

      A spokesman for the AIDs hero campaign denied the rumours that Elton John had stolen any money and that these claims where solely the reports of "unreliable conspiracy theorists". Elton in his mansion in west Hollywood, California was not available to answer our questions personally but says he will release a personal statement to the press as soon as he has had his manicure and butt wax. On his website Elton still has his "Champion for AIDs" banner and continues to take donations from unknowing and well-meaning visitors who still believe the disease is incurable. A number of high-profile homosexual groups have also complained that they can no longer use AIDs as a charitable front-end to promote "alternative lifestyles" throughout the world.

      Some fringe groups have claimed that the cure does not work for "real homosexuals" and still continues to be the plague of homosexuality, and that the cure only works for "warm weathered queers" and implying that those who do not fully embrace an "alternative lifestyle" with whatever connotations that brings remain can be cured. Dr.Schoenbacker from the University of Vienna's Virology Department claimed that now the cure has been found that third world leather, vaseline, baby oil and paroxide markets could collapse and cause an economic talespin in the European markets and eventually cause an economic downturn in the US.

      Some of the biggest names in the entertainment business are up in arms and are planning to boycott any group that claims a cure to HIV has been found. Like in the early 80's the homosexual community has returned to it's roots and has turned to denial to answer it's questions. More from this story later where we'll be talking to Elton John regarding those allegations.

  58. Root kit by iMaple · · Score: 5, Funny

    or maybe the virus is just using the Sony rootkit

    1. Re:Root kit by xtracto · · Score: 5, Funny

      Does it means $sys$HIV installed without asking when they inserted the media?

      --
      Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
    2. Re:Root kit by Megamote · · Score: 1
      or maybe the virus is just using the Sony rootkit

      No. It was the Juan Gomez rootkit.

    3. Re:Root kit by agraupe · · Score: 1

      More like the Juan Gomez root, AM I RITE GUYS???

    4. Re:Root kit by Dr.+Cody · · Score: 2, Funny

      Does it means $sys$HIV installed without asking when they inserted the media?

      "They"!? One at a time buddy!

  59. Re: The real deal. by EddyPearson · · Score: 5, Interesting

    In 2002 this guys was tested, now they found HIV Fighting T Cells in his blood stream (Expected for an HIV patient) but no sign of the virus (Again, normal in the early stages) then, when the tested him later there was no virus, and no T cells.

    So they claim a cure, However this could just as easily been a results as a localised infection (perhaps in a few skin cells) that had then died.

    If the guy really did kill off the HIV virus, then those anti-bodies will still be readily available (If you kill it once, your body will kill it again, no problem)

    --
    You feel sleepy. Close your eyes. The opinions stated above are yours. You cannot imagine why you ever felt otherwise.
  60. Re:First? What about the African Prostitutes et.al by archeopterix · · Score: 1
    "The most probable explanation for the finding of HIV-specific CTL, able to kill virus-infected cells, in apparently uninfected but repeatedly HIV-exposed women is that they have been immunized by exposure to HIV," notes Dr. Sarah Rowland-Jones of the Molecular Immunology Group at Radcliffe Hospital in Oxford.

    That would seem to contradict your genetic theory.

    This is only a hypothesis, and a problematic one. Why does repeated exposure gives immunity, while a single exposure can give you infection or nothing? Why constant exposure while infected doesn't give you immunity?
  61. Highly unlikely... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is possible that this guy could have cured himself of HIV. There are a number of possibilities...

    1) He was infected with a weakened serotype of HIV.

    I don't think him being a stereotype HIV participant would be special help to anything
    2) He has some unusual CCXR gene polymorphisms or some other gene defect leading to reduced ability of HIV to replicate, or the ability to clear the virus.
    blahhhhhhh....
    It is possible the original test was wrong. However, in virtually all labs I know of, on a positive test there is a repeat and follow up test done. This normally a western blot. So, the odds of the result being wrong is exceedingly low.
    You are making a determination founded on a presumption -- I don't buy presumptions.
    If this is for real... this guy is the luckiest son of a bitch alive.
    You presume he was born of a bitch. Let me help you out with THIS interview I took of Crocodile Hunter down in hawwstrallyuh:

    Me: Hey Irwin mate, what gibbor that britt to lose the jabbies, yo?
    Crotch Hunter: First mate, I'll have you fix me name before I say anything to yoos.
    Me: SARSries dude.
    Crockedile Hunter: I think he's not a son of a bitch, and neither was he born from a bitch. Surely, that lucky britt was originally quaffed from the cunt of a croc! He's got croc blood in 'eem. As we all know, there are only two ways to have immunity to HIV, and they are to be born of a croc or have sex with one.
    Me: ok, i agree

  62. What a title by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    maybe it's because english isn't my native language, but when you say "man cures himself of HIV", i rather get the impression of some guy finding a treatment to get rid of the hiv virus, rather than the actual story, of how someone's immune system actually managed to defeat hiv...

    is it just that my english is poor or does that title suggest the guy activily(/consiously) did things to get rid of his hiv infection?

    1. Re:What a title by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your comprehension of English is fine; Slashdot's use of it is poor.

    2. Re:What a title by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      ... and he's new here, too.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  63. He didn't trust original clinic by evilandi · · Score: 2, Informative

    The article also seems to indicate that he didn't trust that his clinic made the correct original diagnosis - his initial reaction was to sue them.

    --
    Andrew Oakley - www.aoakley.com
  64. Potential by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He sure has potential to become the richest man on the planet..

  65. If only... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...you were a lemming and not a Leeming we'd be saved from this kind of drivel.

  66. He should patent himself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Perhaps he should patent "a process by which an element of the human immune response cures HIV" before he deals with those seeking to discover how he was able to rid himself of HIV.

    After all the pharma companies will seek to do so if he doesn't. It might be seen as a wake up call if he does so.

  67. had to happen sooner or later by mliikset · · Score: 1

    any organism that kills any number approaching 100% of its host population is headed for rough times unless it becomes less lethal. The lethality isn't that deliberate either. You're just supposed to be healthy enough to shake it.

    1. Re:had to happen sooner or later by mr_snarf · · Score: 1

      People infected with HIV can easily live long enough to pass it onto others or even have children. In that way it isn't really headed for rough times, even if it kills all of its victims.

      Of course a virus that doesn't cause any problems may be far more successful than one that kills its host.

      --
      printf("Goodbye cruel world!\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b");
  68. How you come up "cured" in a test? by Aqua+OS+X · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I don't quite understand how one can have HIV, and then appear to be "cured." Correct me if I'm wrong, but the two ways of testing for HIV are a) testing for antibodies that you develop when you get the virus, or b) testing for the virus.

    I've heard it's possible to have a viral count that is so low that it is undetectable. But what about antibodies? Do they disappear once a virus leaves the system?

    Isn't it possible that this guy still has HIV, yet they can't detect it?

    any biology geeks here?

    --
    "Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
    1. Re:How you come up "cured" in a test? by Saphier · · Score: 1

      Not a biology geek but i'll take a stab at it - Antibodies don't disappear over time, that is why vaccines (i.e. polio) work, they introduce a dead version of the virus into your system, and your body builds up antibodies for it so that if you ever come into contact with the live virus your body is ready for it. This doesn't work for HIV because it is a highly mutatious virus that changes very often within the body, so even if you're 'ready' for one type of HIV, there are a lot more out there that you're more likely to get. I'm not sure if there is an 'undetectable' HIV, but it seems unlikely, as if he has the virus then he would show the symptoms too - such as the severely reduced lymphocyte counts.

    2. Re:How you come up "cured" in a test? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Antibodies do disappear over time. That's why you sometimes need tetanus booster injections. Moreover, memory cells also seem to disappear over time.

      Problem for this guy; perhaps the virus is hiding is some cells. Undetectable.

    3. Re:How you come up "cured" in a test? by Aqua+OS+X · · Score: 1

      Well, I know they can disappear over an extended period of time. But, ya, I didn't think could vanish instantly.

      So, I don't know how this guy could possibly test as "cured." He would still come up positive on an antibody test even if he did defeat the virus. Moreover, just because the virus was undetectable, that doesn't mean it's gone.

      --
      "Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
    4. Re:How you come up "cured" in a test? by spaceman375 · · Score: 1

      Everybody is looking in the wrong direction. The guy isn't immune - he's incredibly susceptible. He caught it, it killed off all the cells that it can enter easily (including the antibodies that are tested for), and found itself with nowhere to replicate. It dies, and the progenitor cells of his immune system replenished what was missing. He was probably immunocompromised for a little under 2 weeks, and then things are fine. He's more lucky to have not developed pneumonia or sarcoma or another opportunistic infection before his immune system recovered from the fast decimation of a subset of his t-cells.

      There! I've run rings around you logically!
      rm -rf * --- how to intercourse the penguin

      --
      On the one hand you take life too seriously, and on the other, you do not take playful existence seriously enough. Seth
  69. ask and you shall receive by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0195 111397/103-1347703-2080664?v=glance

    that there is survival pressure for disease organisms to evolve towards benign coexistence is a well-establshed idea in virology

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:ask and you shall receive by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 1

      Excellent. Thanks

      --
      There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
  70. CXCR4 mutation? by De_Boswachter · · Score: 5, Informative

    CCR5 is a key receptor for HIV entry in cells (macrophage-like) relevant for viral dissemination. Indeed, the man could have some form of CCR5 variant. My guess is that they already checked for the delta32 version and that they're drawing a lot of blood from this guy and doing a lot of DNA sequencing.

    I've always wondered whether there would be a similar mutation on the CXCR4 receptor, which is another key receptor. This one's in cells (helper T-cell-like) that are relevant for the persistence of HIV in the body. Since, apparently, the virus was able to get into the bloodstream of this man, my two cents would be that CXCR4 rather than CCR5 could play arole in this phenomenon of self-healing.

    1. Re:CXCR4 mutation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Could be a lot of things. Perhaps his APOBEC mutators are not inhibited by Vif so most of his infected cells only produce defective viral particles. (assuming the story checks out) I wonder how he got rid of already integrated virus...

    2. Re:CXCR4 mutation? by De_Boswachter · · Score: 1
      "I wonder how he got rid of already integrated virus..."
      That's a big point, yes. But again, it argues for the lack of CXCR4/T-tropism. Macrophage-like cells don't divide anymore. They just eventually die.
    3. Re:CXCR4 mutation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      CXCR4 tropism (or mixed CXCR4/CCR5 tropisms) is usually found in a late stage of the illness (usually just before the major T-cell depletion). Initially the tropism is CCR5 (depending on the infection source). CD4 positive T-cells also carry CCR5; they will become infected.

    4. Re:CXCR4 mutation? by De_Boswachter · · Score: 1

      Darn. You got me there. (Admin, please mod back first post to 1). Now I have to think of something else...

      How about infection with an attenuated HIV clone that can not genetically shift back to a wild-type-like variant?

  71. CCR 5 Delta 32 Gene by BoringAsBatGuano · · Score: 1

    Could it simply be the case that this guy has the CCR 5 Delta 32 gene, which conveys AIDS immunity?

    1. Re:CCR 5 Delta 32 Gene by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FYI,
      a mutant allele of CCR5, CCR5 delta 32 is frequent in populations of European origin. Homozygotes for the delta 32 allele exhibit a strong, although incomplete, resistance to HIV infection, whereas heterozygotes display delayed progression to acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS). http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd= Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=1240250 6

  72. Donna Maclean, Europe, and the WTO by bitkari · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Seriously, this is not "Funny". Check out Donna McClean from Bristol UK who HAS successfully patented herself and her entire genetic code

    No, she *applied* for a patent, but it has not been granted. There is a vast gaping chasm between applying for a patent and actually being granted it.

    In Europe you cannot patent genetic codes for people, animals or plants - at least not right now. The fear is that if large corporations manage to enforce bio-patents on the rest of the world via pressure from the WTO.

    1. Re:Donna Maclean, Europe, and the WTO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      There is a vast gaping chasm between applying for a patent and actually being granted it.
      Not in the US. Imperceptible gap is closer to the mark.
  73. As Strange as this is, this isn't the first time. by Gen.+Rasputin+X · · Score: 1

    While most people won't believe this, and I'm not sure I believe it myself, a friend of mine claimed the same thing about 6 months ago. That he'd contracted HIV from a hooker a few years back, and that later tests revealed him to be clean. He claims his self-destructive habits managed to cure it by burning it out of his body.

    I was always skeptical about it, though I know he's clean now, as I know his current girlfriend. I simply figured he'd never had it, but this makes me wonder.

  74. Are you chewing? by dj_super_dude · · Score: 1

    I just hope he brought enough cure for everyone :)

  75. Life imitating Fiction? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Gibson's martyr (Shapely) in 'Virtual Light'?

  76. Re:Sex with virgin = AIDS cure by mav[LAG] · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This isn't remotely funny - it's a belief that is responsible for untold numbers of child rapes each year, especially in sub-Saharan Africa.

    --
    --- Hot Shot City is particularly good.
  77. Not too interesting but it can be a step forward. by burni · · Score: 1

    - Why not that interesting ? Because it is known that babies of HIV infected mothers can be born not carrying the HI-Virus, the virus is unlikely to pass the mother-to-baby connecting membrane, as we have this type of membrane twice(50% of the (wo)mankind ;) the other 50% only once) in our brains its called "blood-brain-barrier" if any virus goes past, it becomes extremly dangerous. So when the birth takes place under good condiditions, the possiblity of infecting the baby is very low. These Babies after birth show HIV-antibodies, transfered from the mother to the child, its a way the information about infections is passed to the child, because the babies untrained imune-system, they normally disapear within 6-8 weaks, if they not, than its getting more likely that the baby is HIV infected. - What exactly does the test for the HIV, really do ? It does not really test for the HIV its a test decting HIV antibodies. - What is the lethal dose ? The medical-community speculates, that depending on the condidition of imune-system you need to be infected by a minimum amount of HIV, so that the virus can hide in your imune-system, and not getting destroyed by it. So he is is lucky but not that unique I would say, because the test should have made - which is common - twice with a period of time between, to correct these errors out, and to double check the test itself. PRO Condoms In the end AIDS remains a deadly and painfull illness, and the HI-virus remains a hardly to be controlled infection, with heavy side effects of the drugs. There is only one way to protect YOU, and YOUR LOVED ONE, or your desired one (- night stand). Use a normal condom for vaginal intercourse and oral intercourse, use a thicker condom or two combined for anal intercourse, do not swallow sperm, these guidlines apply to straight and gay people equally, and even to people infected with HIV, two HI-virus-subgroups are twice as deadly. A condom does not only protect you from HIV, but also protects from HEP-B and HEP-C, which both are even more deadly than HIV-infections, and therefor more widespread. HEP : hepatitis death type : the so called "liver coma" Liver stops its essential functions, which cannot be reproduced like the kidneys function, the body poisens itself, short time after becoming unconscious, with short awake periods, followed by multiple organ disfunction, and in the end, Joe Black. When you have seen somebody dying from liver coma you start to think twice about alocohol and condoms.

  78. Both articles accurate (time lag) by darkonc · · Score: 1
    The BBC article is datged Nov. 13. The timesonline article is dated Nov. 14 and says that
    Clinicians and other sexual health specialists said yesterday that Mr Stimpson's decision to undergo further tests could reveal more about the workings of the disease.
    It's probable that he decided to undergo testing inbetween the BBC and the TimesOnline articles.
    Most arguments are the result of missing a critical piece of information that links two apparently disparate stories.
    --
    Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
  79. "AIDS virus" by w.timmeh · · Score: 1

    You could, but that's a different problem. AIDS (autoimmune deficiency syndrome) is not a virus, it is a condition that develops as a result of an HIV infection.

    A subtle distinction, but an important one.

  80. TFA is slim in details... by Starker_Kull · · Score: 1

    ...and several posters seem to know more from other news sources than the BBC. Care to post some links? Thx!

  81. hmmmm.... by KitesWorld · · Score: 1

    could be the first people in the world to have cured himself of the deadly HIV virus.

    Apparently, the Mutiple Personality Syndrome didn't like it moving in on his turf.

  82. HIV Causes AIDS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's a lot of assumption that HIV causes AIDS. Turns out, it's because the NIH around 1982 or so said so, and the CDC made up a report about it.

    So far, there's not been any peer-reviewed work claiming HIV directly causes AIDS. In fact, AIDS patients more often than not don't have HIV in their systems.

    Here's a link, repleat with propaganda and tin-foil hats, but still has some decent information on the issue.

  83. Mod Parent Up by Builder · · Score: 1

    The parent is correct - The report I saw claimed that he had declined to be retested. This is not an editorial error.

    1. Re:Mod Parent Up by cojerk · · Score: 1

      In Soviet Russia, test takes YOU!

      Sorry: I couldn't resist.

  84. Ah, Scotsman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stronger guys, even if those North Ayrshire women gave him some bad time he managed to get on well..

    That should say something about 'em, huh? ;0

  85. Re:Sex with virgin = AIDS cure by SpaghettiPattern · · Score: 1

    He had sex with a virgin...

    Are the dots of hesitation a way to come out for the fact that you were the virgin he had sex with?

    Kidding!!! Here on /. we're of course all smooth talking ole devils that get laid constantly with only interruptions for sleep -and very seldom coital interruptions too ;)

    --

    I hadn't the slightest objection to his spending his time planning massacres for the bourgeoisie... (P.G. Wodehouse)
  86. Re:First? What about the African Prostitutes et.al by lpangelrob · · Score: 1
    Well, the news isn't all bad...

    Sarah Rowland-Jones, a researcher at Oxford University, described the development of HIV in the six women as "dismaying". She added: "This implies that to maintain immunity, you need to have continual exposure."

    The final results have not yet been compiled, however, and the Medical Research Council, under which the research is being carried out, does not believe the chances of developing an effective vaccine have been damaged.

    It is still hoped that a vaccine can be developed which builds up immunity by introducing genes containing fragments of HIV proteins into the body.

    The article goes on to say that any such vaccine would be far too expensive for Kenyan prostitutes... which unfortunately means that they would have to do what they could to continue to be exposed to the HIV virus. Even if this meant being exposed repeatedly to one HIV positive partner, who knows if the vaccine depends on the virus being different every time?

    Needless to say, research continues.

  87. Re:This guy wants compensation?! MOD UP by stunt_penguin · · Score: 1

    Did it ever occur to anyone that he probably sought compensation when he found out he was HIV negative because he thought it was impossible to have been cured and therefore concluded that the first tests were a false positive?

    If I had a test, had been told I was HIV positive, spent a number of years undergoing the stress of actually thinking I had HIV, taking the anti-retroviral drugs and not having sex with anyone for fear of accidental infection through a split/burst condom (it happens), then I think I'd be looking for compensation if I later found out that I was never HIV positive at all and it was down to a mess up at the lab.

    It wouldn't have even occured to him that his immune system fought off the virus, so he naturally assumed that someone borked the first set of tests & ruined his live.

    --
    When the posters fear their moderators, there is tyranny; when the moderators fears the posters, there is liberty.
  88. Re:First? What about the African Prostitutes et.al by ZombieWomble · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The key difference is, I believe, that this man definately had HIV (assuming we can believe the insistence of the people who did the tests that they were correct) but now no longer does. By contrast, these women are people who by all rights should have got HIV through everyday exposure, but have not. It is not known whether they have got the disease and been 'cured' like this man, or if they simply never became infected in the first place - and since these women never tested positive for HIV before the study started, we can't confirm which of these was the case.

  89. We're shipping him to Canada... by gijoel · · Score: 1

    ... and while you're at could you put this yellow spandex uniform and fake mutton chops on please.

  90. He's the PIANO MAN! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think this guy is the piano man. He doesn't know where he got hiv and he doesn't know how he got rid of it.

  91. No it bloody doesn't! by aug24 · · Score: 1
    See here


    Occam's Razor says that the *simplest* explanation is likely correct. Usually this is taken to mean the theory with the fewest assumptions beyond what is normally accepted.


    Justin.

    --
    You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
    1. Re:No it bloody doesn't! by k98sven · · Score: 1

      Occam's Razor says that the *simplest* explanation is likely correct. Usually this is taken to mean the theory with the fewest assumptions beyond what is normally accepted.

      No, did you read it? That's not what it says either. It says "Entities need not be multiplied needlessly", meaning that if you've got two equally valid explanations, you might as well go with the simpler one.

      That does NOT mean that the simpler one is more likely to be correct. Only that there's no point in complicating things for no gain.

    2. Re:No it bloody doesn't! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and a big round of applause for the /. moron who is able to state the bleedin' obvious. did you impress yourself? i hope you did.

  92. Actually, by duffel · · Score: 2, Informative

    Occam's Razor states that one should not increase the number of entities required to describe a thing beyond what's necessary.

    ie, if you drop a hammer while the moon is shining, and you find it falls to the ground, Occam's Razor indicates that the theory "Hammers fall to the ground when dropped" is better than the theory "Hammers fall to the ground when dropped provided the moon is out"

    Occam's razor doesn't necessarily point at an erroneous test. Probability and false positives point to that.

    [Side note: If you want to include theories of gravity, use Chatton's Anti-Razor which states that if your simple theory doesn't explain things, you have to find a more complex one, ie "Hammers fall to the ground " -> "Hammers fall to the ground when let go"]

  93. Re: Evolution, No Way! by T0wner · · Score: 2, Funny

    Clearly God must smile upon this slightly more intelligently designed being.

  94. Mortality rate by jurt1235 · · Score: 1

    With HIV it is unknown. People infected with HIV and who later develop aids, the mortality rate (without medicine) is 100%. Nobody cures of aids. Apparently people do cure of HIV, or live with it for prolonged periods. Those cases are usually never seen by a doctor, or only discovered by the mentioned research. To determine the resistance of the population to HIV, somebody should probably research a complete population which has a high of infection, like the group of prostitutes in Gambia, but then on a larger scale. I am afraid the rate will be pretty low.

    --

    My wife's sketchblog Blob[p]: Gastrono-me
  95. Tests Were Accurate by John+Leeming · · Score: 5, Informative

    These tests are redundant to prevent misdiagnosis; I know, because I've got a "false positive" condition that comes up as AIDS too often. Rather than going to one source, look to others for more information.

    Then look up "John Moore" in the "human patent" case to see what this poor sap is in for...

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-18703 40,00.html#121

    "Stimpson was tested three times in August 2002 at the Victoria clinic for sexual health in central London and the results showed he was producing HIV antibodies to fight the disease."

    "In October 2003, after impressing doctors with his good health, Stimpson was offered a new test, which came back negative. Further tests in December 2003 and March last year also proved negative."

    "The tests were re-checked by the Chelsea and Westminster Healthcare NHS Trust when Stimpson threatened litigation believing there must be a mistake, but the results confirmed all the tests had been accurate."

    --
    "Eustace? Eustace? Are you there? Are you there?" = John Leeming
    1. Re:Tests Were Accurate by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      This is the UK health system we're talking about here, though. It's more a political machine than a medical one, rife with incompetence and politically motivated decisions.

      They probably just told him that to advert a lawsuit disaster.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
  96. he doesn't look very well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    kind of pasty. If I was his mum I'd be worried

  97. the bad news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the bad news is you have to let this guy fuck you in the ass regularly to be immune to AIDS...

    and he looks like a cross between CmdrTaco and CowboyKneel.

  98. Possible analogy to Tetnis by Xyleene · · Score: 1

    Why does repeated exposure gives immunity?

    Continued exposure simply maintains immunity. The antibodies that are dealing with the disease do not have a chance to dissapear and are reproduced continually to combat the continuing invasion.

    Since we are speculating, this could als be analagous to viruses such as Tetnis where a continued exposure to it (in Tetnis's case in the form of a vaccine per decade or so), ensures the persons immune system dosen't 'forget' how to make the antibodies.

    Perhaps the ex prostitutes were not exposed to the virus for a while then contracted it again while their immune system could not deal with it or had forgotten how. Unlucky gals!

    --
    Give them the illusion of choice and they will blindly follow for they choose not to make one.
  99. Re:Not too interesting but it can be a step forwar by Kildjean · · Score: 1
    Use a normal condom for vaginal intercourse and oral intercourse, use a thicker condom or two combined for anal intercourse, do not swallow sperm, these guidlines apply to straight and gay people equally

    Why not stopping having sex recklessly? The best anticonceptive and best Anti-sexual venereal disease is just not having it... If Im going to put 2 condoms for one thing, 3 condoms on for another and 20 condoms if she is going to swallow, it would be better not to have sex at all.

    --
    Nom de dieu de putain de bordel de merde de saloperie de connard d encule de ta mere.
  100. Similar event in 1998 by vuzman · · Score: 2, Interesting

    In january 1998 a 13 year old faroese girl received a blood transfusion contaminated with HIV. She was treated with powerful anti-HIV drugs (zidovudine, lamivudine, and indinavir) for 9 months, when the treatment was stopped because of the strong side effects. HIV was never found in her blood. She received a compensation of DKK 750,000 (~$120,000). More on this here and here (in danish)

  101. Re:Sex with virgin = AIDS cure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thats why you're stupid, moron.

  102. Kant vs Mills by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ahh, when a kantian and a Millsian meet on slashdot...

  103. In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Man cures himself of virus... by installing Linux! Ba-dum-cha. Thank you folks, I'll be here all week.

  104. Ironic by (trb001) · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Anyone else noticing the irony of the first person who may be immune to a deadly disease being gay and thus probably not reproducing?

    --trb

    1. Re:Ironic by east+coast · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      It may sound like flamebait but it's really not... I often wondered if homosexuality was "caused" by some natural method by which our own genetics determined that we should not reproduce for some biological reason such as a corrupted genetic code.

      I know that I'm not in any way qualified to make such sweeping statements but it would make sense from the evolution aspect that there would be a system to terminate a genetic strain if something went wrong.

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    2. Re:Ironic by alexborges · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well. Hurray for ignorance.

      Since when do gay people not reproduce?

      Ill invite you once to large anual gay party. Most people there over 40 are married to their women, but still come to the party.

      So much for assuming "THE GAYS" dont reproduce.

      Fucking hillbillie.

      --
      NO SIG
    3. Re:Ironic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Fucking hillbillie.

      Your choice of insult is quite ironic; the average hillbilly will fuck anything. But he'll shoot you if you mention it.

    4. Re:Ironic by joeytsai · · Score: 1

      Considering the fact that men who have sex with other men are nine times more likely to be infected with HIV, I would say no, that's just the probable outcome of this disease.

      --
      http://www.talknerdy.org
    5. Re:Ironic by elgatozorbas · · Score: 1
      Anyone else noticing the irony of the first person who may be immune to a deadly disease being gay and thus probably not reproducing?

      Since aids was initially (afaik) a disease mostly spread under gays, they probably still have a higher percentage of infection and therefore a higher chance of recovering from it, no?

    6. Re:Ironic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but now he can sleep around and not worry

    7. Re:Ironic by khallow · · Score: 1

      OTOH, it might be an evolutionary advantage as long as it doesn't become too common. For example, in the book, Sperm Wars, the author describes a hypothetical advantage to homosexuality. Namely, that a homosexual gains sexual and dating experience faster than a heterosexual. Hence, they can compete better for mates. But this might only work if there aren't a lot of homosexuals.

    8. Re:Ironic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If he's not gay himself why would you expect him to know the cultural nuances of the gay community? Calling him a "fucking hillbillie" is a bit harsh, me thinks.

      Don't get so defensive, I'm sure he didn't mean it as an insult.

    9. Re:Ironic by RsG · · Score: 1

      You're right, it does sound like flaimbait, but I will address it seriously. It isn't very good science, because you're assuming that there is an evolutionary advantage to a person taking themselves out of the gene pool. Evolution doesn't work that way.

      Evolution isn't a thinking, intelligent proccess; it's basically probabilty. If you carry "corrupt" genes, as you put it, then you probably won't live long enough to reproduce, and thus those genes will die with you. If you carry genes that are well adapted to your current environment, then your odds of surviving and reproducing are higher, and those genes will get preserved.

      There is no way for any sort of kill switch to evolve that way. A person will not evolve a "don't breed" gene for the good of the species, because such a mutation has no way of happening accidentally, nor does probability dictate that such a person is more likely to survive than someone without such a trait. Natural selection has to favour a trait before it can become common.

      And in fact it would be deterimental to the species if we had such a failsafe, since mutation is part of the normal evolutionary process; one generations "corrupted" gene is the next ones survival trait.

      --
      Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
    10. Re:Ironic by gr8dude · · Score: 1

      Hmm.. ok, picture that he's heterosexual. Now, if you were a woman - would you have sex with this guy? [knowing that he was infected, but then got cured]

      If I were a chick, no way I'd sleep with that guy.. Fsck it, even if biology proved that he's clean, [probably] any woman would feel psychologycally uncomfortable, because thoughts like "what if the tests weren't correct?" don't vanish that easily.

    11. Re:Ironic by jimi+the+hippie · · Score: 1

      At least he's not a fucking faggot.

    12. Re:Ironic by alexborges · · Score: 1

      That would remain to be seen. As would your own sexual preference, or mine for that matter.

      --
      NO SIG
    13. Re:Ironic by east+coast · · Score: 1

      It isn't very good science, because you're assuming...
      ...There is no way for any sort of kill switch to evolve that way.


      Speaking of poor science. There is a TON we don't know about genetics yet and you're making sweeping statements like this? I can at least admit to my ignorance. I really need to ask; what are your qualifications? I want something beyond what "makes sense" to you as reason for this way of thinking.

      If you really had this much insight into genetics I highly doubt you'd be posting on /. but who knows.

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    14. Re:Ironic by RsG · · Score: 1

      It isn't a question of what we do or don't know of genetics. For your assumption to have even a remote chance of being correct, there would have to be a fundmental misunderstanding about how natural selection works. Do I have to have a PhD in physics before I tell you that a perpetual motion machine won't work? A basic understanding of thermodynamics is all that's needed there, and a basic understanding of how natural selection works is all that's needed here.

      Look at it this way - survival of your genes is what matters evolutionarily. Not what benefits the species, but what materially increases the likelyhood of you, the individual, surviving and breeding. Some genetic trait that would prevent you from breeding as a way to quarantine "corrupted" genes, again to use the word you used, would not evolve. Evolved traits, without exception, exist to aid the survival of your genetic code, which is not a goal that a "kill switch" gene that triggers homosexuality would accomplish.

      Put in very plain english, our current understanding of evolution, and all future understandings of the theory of natural selection, hinge upon the idea that traits must offer some survival benefit to the host organism, or its decendants who represent the future of its genetic material. Traits that don't offer any benefit don't get passed on.

      What benefit to the individual's genetic survival does a gene that prevents you from breeding give? None. There isn't a single good reason to think that such a trait would ever evolve. There is no way selective pressure would favour such a gene. Unless you can either make a compelling arguement otherwise, which you haven't done yet, then all you've got is a wild guess.

      --
      Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
    15. Re:Ironic by Wolfier · · Score: 1

      > There is no way for any sort of kill switch to evolve that way.

      Right.

      However, it is probable that the species has evolved in a way that a minor defect in any of the few crucial genes can make the organism fail miserably - i.e. evolution makes it easier to activate any "kill switch", by making a lot of minor defects such "kill switches".

    16. Re:Ironic by RsG · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure that's right. What you're basically saying is that crucial genes, if they mutate, will result in the organism's premature death. I can see the advantage here in a few cases, for example early fetal kill switches that cause a pregnant mother to misscarry, and increase the chances of her reproducing again. And there are probably other similar instances where it might make sense. But in any other case, who's to say it's evolution?

      In other words, if a crucial gene is defective, it's probably going to be fatal anyway, if not immediately then quickly enough that it won't be passed on. Why would natural selection favour a quicker, or more immediate death? And how could we tell the difference, whether we've evolved to die faster if certain genes change for the worse, or whether we just die faster if we inherit such traits because the traits themselves are fatal?

      --
      Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
    17. Re:Ironic by Wolfier · · Score: 1

      I'm more thinking along the line of - a species that allows relatively arbitrary mutation without making kill switches out of them...could diversify into different species quickly (i.e. cannot interbreed).

      Assuming this is right, highly specialized species like the humans should have a relatively high number of "kill switches".

      i.e. a genetic defect can kill a human much easier than it does bacteria.

      I don't know if it is right or not, it is just logical to me.

  105. I'm not sure if it's already reported but... by lbbros · · Score: 1

    ... he didn't have AIDS. He was positive for HIV (that means, anti-HIV antibodies were detected in his blood). Now, there's a difference between those two, and that's why I think the press coverage has been largely misleading. A person can be HIV+ for more than 10 years, but AIDS occurs only later, when the immune system is actually incapable of working. It's a slow process. During this period there's still some function (declining) in the immune system, that therefore is not yet "deficient". In short, HIV+ != AIDS.

    --
    A CC-licensed illustrated horror novel
  106. Wait a sec... by BLKMGK · · Score: 1

    So his partner is infected and the article claims he doesn't want to pursue further testing that might lead to a cure? Umm, wouldn't that sort of leave his partner infected and dying? Surely he's thought of that - there must be more to the story here and it wouldn't surprise me to find that a "journalist" screwed something up....

    --
    Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
  107. Hmm... by RedNovember · · Score: 1

    $sys$HIV... insertion of media...

    Nah, too easy.

    --
    "MY APOCALYPTIC TENOR HAS NOT BEEN DISPELLED!" - T-Rex, qwantz.com
  108. the first test was done during primo infection ? by dario_moreno · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Maybe he had the first test while he was developing primo-infection ; his body managed to kill off the virus before it entered his marrowbones and infected his immune system : hence the initially positive test and then the negatives ones and the immunity. Maybe it's much more common than we think since excepted for lab workers who are accidentally contaminated I don't think that many people have an HIV test if they fill feverish a few days after unprotected sex, the tests are usually routine ones done several years after the primo-infection or during the first outbreak of full blown AIDS. Besides, there are a few cases of contaminated lab workers (or newborns) saved from HIV by a massive tritherapy just after the contamination, killing off the virus before it can hide itself in the marrows : same phenomenon here ? This would explain that the probability of being infected during unprotected sex is less than 1% (however, once a day on several years is a sure winner, which would contradict the fact that the guy is now immune). No connection but if someone is dumb enough to sleep with an HIV positive person would he also be dumb enough to refuse to help science ?

    --
    Google passes Turing test : see my journal
  109. Re:First? What about the African Prostitutes et.al by BoneFlower · · Score: 1

    Depending on how their apparent resistance worked, this might not necesarily mean their resistance isn't real, or useful for developing treatments.

    A brick wall might resist one person trying to knock it over. But if that one person comes back every single day after fattening up and running practice(momentum = mass * velocity of course), then eventually they just might get through.

    A similar concept could be behind the prostitutes eventual infection. After gettting nailed(no pun intended) with the virus enough times, or from a customer with a sufficiently large amount of the virus in his fluids, *bam* infection.

  110. Are we sure that... by pigreco314 · · Score: 1

    ... he didn't touch the former Pope or talked to him or caressed the TV screen when he was on?
    Might be a further posthumous proof of Wojtyla's making miracles.

    --
    "linux" is a very common word and was not included in your search.
  111. JD Shapely, aids martyr ... by Gopal.V · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Virtual Light has a guy called JD Shapely, who was a gay prostitute who was the first to become immune to AIDS. And a vaccine was based on his blood cells.

    Science and Fiction ... sometimes meet in a book.

  112. Someone's wrong... by jrmiller84 · · Score: 1

    I'm not sure who is more reliable, but on NPR they announced he was cooperating fully with doctors. Not sure which source is more reliable. Probebly BBC as he is in fact British. I don't understand why anyone in their right mind wouldn't help the scientific community out with such a amazing event. Kind of odd to me.

    --
    I will forever be a student.
  113. Aliens cure AIDS! by Quixadhal · · Score: 1

    "Yep, I was diagnosed with that thar AIDS thang after I was attacked in deer camp by Bigfoot last year,", says a second man who was also cured of AIDS.

    "I was purty depressed, an my cornhold hurt somethin' fierce for weeks. Then this spaceship came down and I got abducted by them bug-eyed little fellers! When I came to, I was cured... so I guess I gotta thank 'em."

    "Course, my cornhole hurts again now... an' I got no deer this year neither." ....

    Sorry guys, saw this article on google news yesterday, with the word "TABLOID" right there in the header. I'm sure slashdot readers and editors know the value of tabloid stories.

  114. Horray for him. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well,

    He and His Partner can move to CAL-IF-ORN-I-AHAH and have a
    little wedding,
    just a few hundred close friends.

  115. AIDS test unreliable in African countries by Dr_Phil_McGraw · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Having lived many years in an african country (Zambia) with a high degree of AIDS victims I know these tests are unreliable. Maybe a few times a year you would get a cover story: "Man cured of AIDS: Tests say he is negative". On a different note you can't help to be a little skeptical. This man refused beginning AIDS treatment and believes he is a miracle. Sounds a little hokus pokus to me.

    1. Re:AIDS test unreliable in African countries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      isn't it true that in some African countries they diagnose AIDS via sympotoms instead of blood tests?

    2. Re:AIDS test unreliable in African countries by Dr_Phil_McGraw · · Score: 1

      Usually the ELIZA test is done (blood test on antibodies). But in South Africa for example they conduct the Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) test on children. PCR looks for the actual virus formations instead of the antibodies.

  116. Problem... by Khyber · · Score: 1

    However this could just as easily been a results as a localised infection (perhaps in a few skin cells) that had then died.

    HIV doesn't infect skin cells. It attacks and infects your immune system. The test looks specifically for HIV antibodies.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  117. Interesting link between prostitutes and this guy! by Fjan11 · · Score: 1
    From the link quoted by parent: "Sarah Rowland-Jones, a researcher at Oxford University, described the development of HIV in the [prostitutes]... She added: "This implies that to maintain immunity, you need to have continual exposure."

    From the News of the World article: " I had been having unprotected sex with my [infected] partner after the diagnosis, believing we had nothing to lose."

    This could explain it! (Imagine what cure the doctors will have to start prescribing if this is true!)

    --
    This sig is just as redundant as the rest of this posting
  118. Shall I call you ... by hatrisc · · Score: 1

    Logan, Weapon-X?

    --
    I write code.
  119. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 5, Funny

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  120. Re:Sex with virgin = AIDS cure by bongo69 · · Score: 2, Informative

    I have to agree, this is a very serious problem in Africa and not to be laughed at, many children are raped by HIV infected adults because of the same belief you have joked about.

    There is a well know comedian called Pieter-Dirk Uys who campaigns against this horror:

    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?story Id=845521

    I saw him when he played in London and it was heartbreaking, makes you think how lucky you really are.

  121. sorry, had to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    your mother was a possible first or second erroneous test!

  122. Headline from the future by doug141 · · Score: 2, Funny

    The PTO has just granted a man a patent for his T Cell structure... he has partnered with Sony to prevent unlicensed use.

    1. Re:Headline from the future by NeuroManson · · Score: 1

      In Soviet Russia, DRM infects you!

      --
      Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
  123. High exposure rates by jurt1235 · · Score: 1

    Ofcourse the exposure rate could be a lot lower. Enough research however shows the mentioned percentages, so to me it does not seem inflated. Trying to follow the path of lower exposure rate, is ostrich politics (head in the sand: If I can not see you, you can not see me).

    --

    My wife's sketchblog Blob[p]: Gastrono-me
  124. What is the 'algorithm' of infection? by master_p · · Score: 0, Redundant

    ...and why scientists have not discovered it?

    I think that in order to make a real good step of progress in dealing with infections, the mechanism of infection must be found out and not what cures a specific infection.

    Same goes for HIV.

  125. License his genetic makeup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He should license his genetic makeup under the GPL.

  126. Give him a Darwin award by ronanbear · · Score: 1

    Swaping blood samples by the patient would be one of the more common explanations for such a result. There are several reasons to do this. He may think that it will help his relationship with his lover (not as implausible as it sounds at first). Continuing to have unprotected sex even where both partners are infected is not a good idea. AIDS, in combination with other STDs can have a much more serious health effect. If its true he is putting himself and his partner in danger. By selling his story to the papers he is preempting the proper scientific investigation. He told the newspapers that he is willing to help and that the doctors were not taking him seriously but he has not yet cooperated with requests for further tests. I hope he does help to find a cure but at the moment I am somewhat skeptical.

    --
    the more they over-think the plumbing the easier it is to stop up the pipe
  127. HIV can hide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    HIV has been known to hide throughout the body in places other than the blood stream. This means the person is still infected with HIV but in taking a blood test, will test negative. One of the places it can hide is in the lymph nodes of the body. Later on, the virus can come back in full force and even develop into full blown AIDS. The anti retroviral drugs available today are incredibly powerful and capable of controlling it.

    I think the real research should be done on the descendents of people from the plague and their lower risk of acquiring the desease.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/sci_tech/highlig hts/011025_ccr5.shtml

  128. Not a first by morie · · Score: 1

    A year ago or so, I read the following in a dutch quality newspaper science section (NRC Handelsblad): African prositutes have been known to become resistent to HIV as long as they sleep with enough HIV positive men. The protection kept HIV out of their system, but disappeared when they stopped sleeping with HIV positive men. The protection also seemed to remove the virus in women already infected.

    Not the cure most people would enjoy, but this man clearly also is not a first...

    --
    Sig (appended to the end of comments I post, 54 chars)
  129. pints? by quest(answer)ion · · Score: 3, Funny

    it comes in pints?

    [hides]

    --
    /. is what happens when geeks talk. get used to it.
    1. Re:pints? by wpiman · · Score: 1

      Three pints? At lunchtime?

    2. Re:pints? by U1timateZer0 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Time is an illusion. Lunchtime; doubly so.

      --
      Unplug all controller for great reset!!
  130. If it were me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd agree, but only if the result couldn't be patented, and I'd say the resulting drug must be sold at cost, i.e. no profit.

    After all, if its important enough for him to give part of his body, shouldn't it be important enough for the drug companies to do this without making a profit?

    Whaaa... You mean companies only have obligations to profits and not helping the planets they live on? And you're okay with that?

    1. Re:If it were me... by tabrnaker · · Score: 1
      What if there is no 'drug' that can cure it? After all, he wasn't on medication. What if the 'cure' is the same 'cure' for hundreds of diseases that afflict millions already. You know, the cure that is basically treating your body correctly. Medical science knows that most diseases can be cured like this and yet they still sell you drugs for 'diseases' that would go away if people took responsability for their bodies. e.g., type 2 diabetes, hyper/hypotension, eyesight, arthritis and most idd's, haha, ingrown toenails, bunions, bone spurs, scoliosis, migraines, etc...

      If it was something simple like that you'd never hear about it again and the drug companies would just move on to something else that they can sell you for the rest of your life.

  131. flower petals by bennini · · Score: 2, Funny

    HIV positive...HIV positive not....HIV positive....HIV positive not...

  132. Call me cold-blooded. by handmedowns · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    But do we really want a cure for cancer, HIV and the common-cold? I have a few friends, but in general I HATE people. 99% of them are mindless idiot drones that are just independent enough to be selfish. One one side I certainly don't approve of biological / chemical warfare, on the other I don't know that it'd be smart to cure the diseases that just barely keep this planet from overcrowding.. Anyone?

    --
    The road between democracy and tyranny is paved with secrecy in the name of security.
    1. Re:Call me cold-blooded. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cold blooded

  133. The needs of many... by PhYrE2k2 · · Score: 1
    I'm not at all certain he should get the choice not to.


    The needs of many outweigh the needs of the few. Period.

    -M
    --

    when you see the word 'Linux', drink!
    1. Re:The needs of many... by Atzanteol · · Score: 1

      So we should kill Bill Gates and redistribute his wealth to the world?

      The needs of the many afterall...

      --
      "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"

      - Charles Darwin
    2. Re:The needs of many... by ckaminski · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The Liberties of One outweigh the needs of the many.

      Period.

    3. Re:The needs of many... by somersault · · Score: 1

      Only to whoever has had to pay for MS crap and anyone affected by a company using MS crap. Oh wait I guess that is the whole world.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    4. Re:The needs of many... by Gumph · · Score: 1

      YES, What a good idea, can I help?

      --
      'By the pricking of my thumbs, something wicked this way comes'
    5. Re:The needs of many... by Kelbear · · Score: 1

      There some reason why we would have to kill him? Or is the "kill" part just for exaggeration?

      No need to kill him. But I'd still redistribute some of his wealth while being sure to leave him very very rich.

      I can get behind the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few. Emphasis on the word "need". Even moreso, I wouldn't have any qualms about valuing the needs of the many against the luxuries of the few.

      If I happen to be on the receiving end, of course I'd be pissed. But that doesn't mean that my desires somehow outweigh everyone else's.

  134. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  135. Re:Sex with virgin = AIDS cure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You've GOT to be kidding me. I've never heard that before.

    Anyone stupid enough to believe that is better off out of the gene pool, but to take a child with you...

    The fact that it is a problem would seem to confirm all the stereotypes about those societies.

    Sorry, but that's one of the most horrible things I've ever heard.

  136. Not anymore. by DrYak · · Score: 3, Informative
    Most of the HIV tests actually test for antibodies


    Wrong. They did, but not anymore.

    Most *MODERN* test both antibodies produced by host (appears several weeks up to a few months post infection) AND viral antigens (protein p24 is a popular target, and is present in blood after 16days post infection.).

    Our hospital uses such combined test. Also, for increase accuracy, two different tests, from two different producers, each one testing both targets. So if all four results (test 1 Ag, test 1 Ab, test 2 Ag, test 2 Ab) are the same, chances are the answer is erronous are *VERY VERY VERY* low.

    Some test, add also a check for viral genes (gag protein is said to be rather stable across mutants, is detectable after 12 days post-infection). This test target is less popular because RNA (which the virus is made of) is less stable and more difficult to replicate through RT-PCR. This is another target that *may* have been controlled by the hospital.

    The articles say that the british hospital controlled the tests (because the patient tried to sue them) and conclude both were correct.
    So it is likely that the hostipal uses several tests on different targets (like our does), and because each time all results concorded, there's very low chance that the results are wrong.

    Link for info on HIV tests
    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
  137. capitalism rules by muyuubyou · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Knowing the real value of such a cure and if they really think there are good chances to find it, I'd say "no" too until I saw some good 10-digit figures in my bank account.

    1. Re:capitalism rules by HarvardAce · · Score: 1
      I'd say "no" too until I saw some good 10-digit figures in my bank account.

      Me too! I want my balances to go out to 8 decimal places as well, because I hate knowing that I'm losing small fractions of a penny when they compute .5% interest on my $75!

      --
      Note to self: Stop putting jokes in my insightful comments so I can get something other than +1 Funny!
    2. Re:capitalism rules by Viking+Coder · · Score: 1

      Knowing the real value of such a cure and if they really think there are good chances to find it, I'd say "no" too until I saw some good 10-digit figures in my bank account.

      Well, aren't you just the fucking spirit of Christmas?

      As Sartre said - "Hell is other people."

      --
      Education is the silver bullet.
    3. Re:capitalism rules by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      "Give me money now or go fuck yourself"

      Seems like the true spirit of christmas to me. What's the problem?

      --
      It's been a long time.
  138. He'll do as he pleases. by Deputy+Doodah · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    I'm not surprised with his reaction. His thinking processes aren't like those of normal people because of the confusion bred by trying to live like a woman. People nowadays suppress and ignore the fact that being gay is a mental disorder and then react with wonder when gays act strangely.
    Hopefully he'll come around because of societal pressure, but right now he probably has a strong impulse only to indulge his wants. I've been around a lot of gays, and this is something that I've had to come to understand in order to function with them. Their lifestyle is characterized by sexual indulgence, and that trait bleeds over into the other aspects of their lives. Kind of a "to hell with everyone else, I'm satisfying myself and I won't think about who it hurts" attitude.
    Ultimately though, it's this guy's right to do as he pleases, and....well....what can we do? Nothing is what. Too bad too. I've lost some family members and friends to AIDS, and while I'd prefer that people stop giving it to themselves and to their kids, I'd like to have the means to stop it after they do.
    Especially for the kids. What did they do wrong?

    1. Re:He'll do as he pleases. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amazing how you can summarize an entire group of people by their sexuality.
      "His thinking processes aren't like those of normal people because of the confusion bred by trying to live like a woman."
      So gay guys want to be women? That's not being gay, that's called being transgendered, or gender identity.

      Their lifestyle is characterized by sexual indulgence, and that trait bleeds over into the other aspects of their lives. Kind of a "to hell with everyone else, I'm satisfying myself and I won't think about who it hurts" attitude
      It's not characterized by the sexual indulgence, it's classified as that, such as heterosexuality labels individuals who are attracted to the opposite sex. It's another label, a part of the identity, not their entire identity.

  139. Omega man by beforewisdom · · Score: 2, Funny

    This reminds me of the old Charlton Heston movie Omega Man.

    Now that this guy's blood holds the cure for a plauge, I wonder if he is going to go around beating albino marxist hippys?

    1. Re:Omega man by chivo243 · · Score: 1

      Great Movie/story concept.... I loved it, and Soylent green! As far as story concepts: What if AIDS was the next step in evolution?? Or maybe the planet's way of saying "stop fucking me up!" sort of population control... weeding out the weak ones? biologically speaking of course! Your genes are not up to snuff, you're out. Sci-Fi food for thought.

      --
      Sig Hansen?
  140. He can make some money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No doubt why he won't cooperate.

    Why doing it for free, when he could sell 'himself' for zillions to any pharmaceutical company?.

  141. Coming in Late - What if a scam? by kannibal_klown · · Score: 1

    I'm coming in late and while I read through a lot of posts I haven't read them all.

    While the optimist in me hopes that this will lead to something in terms of a vaccine or cure, thus helping millions of men, women, and children throughout the globe.

    But I have a pessimistic side: what if this was a scam gone horribly horribly wrong?

    Let's say he got ahold of some infected blood or such. He somehow arranges it so when he's tested they take a tainted sample (ie, he switches bottles or something). The test comes back positive.

    Weeks later he gets tested again, this time using his real clean blood. The test comes back negative.

    He then sues for the emotional distress of the false positive. Face it, he's got a case since that's a pretty depressing thing to "find out."

    Only his plan works too well. The experts believe in the lie because they have a fully infected batch from 1 backup and a clean batch in another. If he used his own blood twice, the DNA would match up perfectly. And now the BBC and Times are hounding him so he can't just come out and say "Umm, you got me." The most he could claim was they tainted the samples (his original plan).

  142. Smart dude, this one. by Simonetta · · Score: 0, Troll

    You guys see too many movies, you know the one's with the kind old scientist in a white coat played by Sam Jaffe who goes on and on about serving humanity through science and all that other nonsense.

        Science today is totally corporatized and in service of the military/industrial complex. If we take this guy's claim at face value, that there is either something in his body or through a diet or herbal/vitamin supplement that enabled him to deplete the virus from his body, then why should he assume that he would benefit from enabling the global corporations access to this knowledge or genetics?

          AIDS is big business in the west, and a way of getting rid of unneeded surplus people everywhere else. Protease inhibitors bring in tens of thousands of dollars per patient per year to the drug companies, and some guy comes along that can possibly destroy that income at the source? In all likelyhood, the drug companies would find the cure for themselves and their gay kids, then use the copyright laws to keep the research secret in order to protect their AIDS-maintanence profits. After they get this genetic knowledge from this one guy, they will kill him in order to prevent the genetic structure or technique from becoming known to the public. They'd simply say that he had HIV all the time and the second test results were only a false negative. Then they would apply for and get hundreds of millions of dollars in military grants to develop this 'cure' into a biological weapon.
        Remember, you're dealing with American Corporations in the here and now. Assume the most paranoid and evil design and intent and you are going to be right most of the time. This is the real world. This guy is right not to trust corporate science.
        Neither should you.

    1. Re:Smart dude, this one. by Brushfireb · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Obvious Troll, but I will bite.

      If this is really the world you live in, then A) I'm really sorry for you, and B) you might want to get some professional help w/your paranoia.

      Everytime I hear that whole "Evil Corporations" line, my brain shuts off to your logic. Until corporations are run by robots, they are still run by people. So you can say evil people, but not evil corporations. A corporation, in and of itself, can NOT be evil. At least not anymore evil than say, a pencil. Its not alive.

      Secondly, do you REALLY believe that there is this whole class of people running these drug, research, and other corporations who ALL want to hurt the world at their own personal gain? I highly doubt such a group-effort exists. Sure, just like ANY OTHER PROFESSION, there are bound to be bad seeds, and some are bound to rise to the top. But if you really believe that every corporate executive in these companies has it out for humanity, I suggest you go meet some of them. You will find out that they NEED to charge those prices to keep development up. You will find that these people go to work in the morning, come home at night, and try to help their family, their community, and the world at approximately the same rate as most around them. You will find out that these are real, normal, people with all the different personalities, interests, wishes, fears, hopes, and dreams.

      Finally, to use this whole "evil corporations" as a legitimate reason for this man to not help out, is revolting. I would call that line of logic borderline stupidity. EVEN if we assume some guy will profit from it, and that said person is evil, who the fuck cares? If the cure gets out, regardless of how much money some guy or organization makes, the cure still gets out, and people dont die. Surely you dont money over human lives?

      Summary: Get a fucking grip.

    2. Re:Smart dude, this one. by qeveren · · Score: 1

      Surely you dont (value) money over human lives?

      Corporations do.

      --
      Don't just stand there, get that other dog!
    3. Re:Smart dude, this one. by C0rinthian · · Score: 1

      Dead people don't spend money.

    4. Re:Smart dude, this one. by Kelbear · · Score: 1

      The other replier thinks that corporations wouldn't be so evil because they're run by human people who most likely will share the same humanizing characteristics of those around you.

      I would agree but I think it's a pretty poor arguement.

      I would venture that while humans can operate compassionately, corporate entities are not compassionate or human. The goal of the corporation is to maximize shareholder value.

      This would also implicate that if the marginal profit of doing good outweighs the marginal profit of doing evil, the corporation would choose to do good! Corporations aren't good or evil, they're morally ambiguous. Morals don't factor into a corporations in either direction.

      So I wouldn't posit that corporations are good per se, but they're far from the malicious entities you're describing through full-fledged FUD.

      If you had an AIDS cure, you might undercut the temporary cures that you have, but you also kill off all the revenue the competing companies are making on those temporary cures. However, you are now the only go-to person for the AIDS cure and can reap a fortune since you are now a legitimate monopoly since you developed it. You can now maximize profits by charging at the point where marginal cost = marginal revenue, while killing the income flow of competitors. Plus you get brand recognition of being a pioneer in the pharmaceutical industry. You can reinvest that extra edge of profits into researching new drugs to release before other companies to further that edge.

    5. Re:Smart dude, this one. by Brushfireb · · Score: 1

      Flamebait? Slashdot mods are hilarious. If mine is flamebait, what exactly is the post I was responding to?

    6. Re:Smart dude, this one. by Brushfireb · · Score: 1

      No, my point in replying to his comment was this:

      People run corporations. People would see that, regardless of profit, a cure for aids needs to get out and be out. They wouldnt not produce it (sorry for double neg) just to gain profit. If someone tried that, the company would be sued, have a huge PR nightmare, and the executive would be kicked the fuck out. Besides, if anything, and like you stated, there would be huge profit in getting the solution out to everyone. So its a win win for everyone.

    7. Re:Smart dude, this one. by mink · · Score: 1

      Reality seems to tell a different story about government, people, and corporations. Just look in the last few years news involving AIDS drugs and 2nd/3rd world countries or the USA governments treatment of medical cannabis. I think legitimately sick people like cancer patients should be allowed to use drugs that have a positive impact. I have this opinion because I watched a loved one get butchered, wither, and die in horrible pain from cancer.

      --
      Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
    8. Re:Smart dude, this one. by Simonetta · · Score: 1

      Until corporations are run by robots, they are still run by people.

          The whole idea behind a corporation is that it is a legal 'person'. But it doesn't have any human characteristics like ethics or morals.

          Just the opposite, the function of the corporation is to maximize the return on investment to their shareholders. Given a choice between any ethical or moral position on any issue and the making money, the corporation must disregard the humanistic sides of the issue and always go with the choice to make money.

          Summary: I Have A F***ing Grip. Perhaps my critics need to get a little more realistic about the forces that are making the decisions around here. Study some history. And learn to avoid using pronouns and swear words in the same sentence.

    9. Re:Smart dude, this one. by Brushfireb · · Score: 1

      The whole idea behind a corporation is that it is a legal 'person'. But it doesn't have any human characteristics like ethics or morals.

      Not exactly. Its only a legal 'entity', not a person, but why be precise? When was the last time a corporation went to jail? Or voted? or hit you in the face? Its not a person, it cant be, its not alive. Again, please dont give something human characteristics that isnt human. If you see the corporation as evil, then it must be the people who run it who are evil. Focus on them. Once we talk about individuals, with track records, and real characteristics, we can have a real debate.

      Just the opposite, the function of the corporation is to maximize the return on investment to their shareholders. Given a choice between any ethical or moral position on any issue and the making money, the corporation must disregard the humanistic sides of the issue and always go with the choice to make money.

      Once again, "the corporation" doesnt disregard anything. Try again. Regardless, I will ask, AGAIN, how can "the corporation" maximize profit by NOT providing solutions? (In this case, how can "the corporation" maximize profits by NOT providing an AIDS cure?). More importantly, why do you assume that the two are mutually exclusive? Cant corporations be directed to do good things AND make money?

      Perhaps my critics need to get a little more realistic about the forces that are making the decisions around here. Study some history. And learn to avoid using pronouns and swear words in the same sentence.

      Ok, I'll try being more realistic, if you trying being smarter. I'll get so realistic, that I will actually encourage you (again) to talk, email, write, fax, etc ANY Of the corprations you see as "evil" and really engage their officers in real discourse over real issues, instead of blindly labeling them as "evil". You sound like someone in either political party who labels something they dont like as evil to gain moving strength. Just becuase you disagree with some decisions, doesnt immediately make them evil. But that just makes your argument seem more hip and salient, when its not.

      And again, from my original statement, I truly am sorry that you believe that the world you live in is out to get you.

    10. Re:Smart dude, this one. by Brushfireb · · Score: 1

      I generally agree with you, there are shortcomings when it comes to treatments.

      However, the debate was over a cure for aids. I think that would be much less divisive than a potential treatment for cancer that is also a popular drug.

    11. Re:Smart dude, this one. by B.D.Mills · · Score: 1
      I will ask, AGAIN, how can "the corporation" maximize profit by NOT providing solutions? (In this case, how can "the corporation" maximize profits by NOT providing an AIDS cure?).
      That is easy. Pharmaceutical corporations involved in medical research for profit as a rule do not research cures. They research treatments. The difference is important. Cures can only be sold once. Treatments can be sold to the same patients again and again for the rest of the patients' lives.

      Which approach is likely to earn more money, cures or treatments?

      --

      The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. - Edmund Burke
    12. Re:Smart dude, this one. by Brushfireb · · Score: 1

      As another poster pointed out, when it comes to AIDS and deadly diseases, solutions pay more.

      Dead people dont buy treatments.

      Think about it. I think your argument is sound if the patient doesnt die from the disease/condition.

    13. Re:Smart dude, this one. by mink · · Score: 1

      From what I hear about some of the mixtures for AIDS treatment it's ad bad as kemo, but I have no direct experiance there, thats why I brought up Cancer. Both are quite nasty to die from and often there is a prolonged period of "sickness" and suffering.
      Honestly I just don't understand why there is any opposition to using a drug to reduce pain/nausia.

      --
      Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
  143. So can I go back to the bathhouse now? by elrous0 · · Score: 1
    Wait a minute, I thought Pat Robertson said AIDS was a plague from God. But he also said God doesn't change his mind...uh oh...I'm in a loop.

    -Eric

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  144. he should eBay his time by potus98 · · Score: 1

    He should consider the idea of selling his time to the highest bidder. He could also put some parameters in place about what type of tests he would agree to, the right to refuse any specific test, etc...

    Of course, this assumes he is even interested in participating at all. If he wants to go on living as quiet a life as possible, then fine.

    --
    This one gang kept wanting me to join cause I'm pretty good with a bo staff.
  145. Evolution short-circuited? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Something tells me this guy won't be passing his traits to the next generation. Not that there's anything wrong with that...

    I wonder if, by targeting homosexuals, the virus has defeated the normal evolution of immunity?

    1. Re:Evolution short-circuited? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wake up! Visit South-africa once; HIV is not targeting homosexuals. BTW homosexual != no progeny

  146. The cure :O by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    According to the NotW [newsoftheworld.co.uk] Mr Stimpson said, "I'd read the research, I knew it had never happened before. I didn't understand how I could be negative after one year especially because I had been having unprotected sex with my [infected] partner after the diagnosis, believing we had nothing to lose."

    and:

    He contracted the HIV from his "44-year-old HIV-positive partner, Juan Gomez"

    If the "cure" is having sex with your infected gay lover I dont think many of us want to take a that kind of "injection". :)

  147. More likely conclusion... it'll be back. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hopefully the answer to the disease is found in his bloodstream.

    The more likely conclusion is that the HIV virus may for the immediate time being, not be detectable in his bloodstream, nor any detectable antibodies to HIV circulating in his bloodstream, but there may very well still many of virus lying dormant inside neurons in his brain and spinal cord, and they'll be coming back someday in a form slightly mutated enough to thwart whatever in his immune system that is presently remarkably keeping the virus at bay for now.

  148. What about Magic Johnson? by starwarsfans · · Score: 1

    Y'know, Magic Johnson seems to have found a way to beat it as well. Remember when there was a big Press Conference about him? It's been many, many years since then, and we see him doing fine. Why haven't they looked at him to find out how he has managed to beat it? Or, did he not really have it at all?

    1. Re:What about Magic Johnson? by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      "Remember when there was a big Press Conference about him? It's been many, many years since then, and we see him doing fine."

      It's obvious you haven't known many people with HIV personally. You seem to have the idea that you get HIV on Monday, AIDS on Tuesday afternoon, and by the end of the week you've withered away and buried on Sunday. That's really not how it goes.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    2. Re:What about Magic Johnson? by compactable · · Score: 1

      Actually, I thought the same thing ... turns out he still has AIDS http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/aids/2001-11-0 6-aids-johnson.htm ... I have no I dea why I (or you) thought this. Oops.

  149. Strecker Memorandum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Everyone should check out the Strecker Memorandum. No I'm not handing you a link, you lazy fuck. ;)

  150. Shopping Around by slashzero · · Score: 1

    If I was him, I'd look for the research firm that would pay me the most.. You know how much money the pharmisutical companies have? He'd be set for the rest of his life.

  151. evolution or intelligent design? by gosand · · Score: 1

    It's certainly unusual and unexpected in such a short period of time, but it ought not be surprising that some people may have immune systems that can fight the HIV virus. It's evolution in action.
    [snip]
    --
    Jesus saved me from my past. He can save you as well.

    Don't you mean intelligent design in action?

    --

    My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

    1. Re:evolution or intelligent design? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see three options:

      1. You know basically nothing about Christianity but still want to mouth off about it;
      2. You're trolling;
      3. You thought you'd go for +5, Funny.

      I'm feeling charitable so I'll guess it was number three, but if it was either of the others, you're a fucking idiot.

      If it was number three, please ignore the insult; it's not intended for you.

  152. I think it's rather simple. by baudbarf · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    He's a fraud. He either faked his initial test, or faked his last test, it's that simple. It's made evident by the fact that he doesn't want anybody to probe any deeper - if they did, it would be difficult to continue faking and at some point he'd be cornered and the truth would come out. If he pretends that he just doesn't want to be bothered, he'll get plenty of attention.

    --
    You can run but you can't hide, except, apparently, along the Afghan-Pakistani border.
  153. Refused???? by Snaller · · Score: 1

    Where did you get that? I saw him on TV saying that he would be happy to help if he could.

    --
    If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
  154. Life imitating art? by jamrock · · Score: 1

    Reminds me of J.D. Shapely, "The AIDS Saint", a character mentioned several times in passing in William Gibson's novel "Virtual Light". Shapely was a gay hustler who it was discovered was actually reducing the viral count of HIV-positive men who had sex with him. Investigation revealed that he was producing antibodies that destroyed the virus, and his blood products eventually gave rise to a vaccine. Shapely was murdered by ultra-far right Christians. When I first heard about this on BBC, I actually had goose pimples and an immediate flashback to Gibson's story.

  155. What they need to do... by NIN1385 · · Score: 1

    They need to tell this guy he doesn't have a choice, this is for the better of humanity. There is no question as to whether or not he should be forced to participate.

    --

    If carrots got you drunk, rabbits would be fucked up. - Comedian Mitch Hedberg R.I.P. 03/30/68-2/24/05
    1. Re:What they need to do... by Ophelan · · Score: 1

      That isn't the way things generally work in "free" nations. Call him an asshole for not helping, or any number of other things, but there is something horribly wrong with forcing someone to become a science project.

    2. Re:What they need to do... by NIN1385 · · Score: 1

      The needs of the few outway the needs of the many. This disease is human kind's biggest biological threat, we need to know as much as we can about it. Yes he is an asshole, and our government in this so called "free nation" and even the British have done much worse things than require one man to get some tests done on him. Look at Iraq.

      --

      If carrots got you drunk, rabbits would be fucked up. - Comedian Mitch Hedberg R.I.P. 03/30/68-2/24/05
    3. Re:What they need to do... by Zed2K · · Score: 1

      Uhhh...I'd say heart disease and breast cancer are human kinds biggest threats. There are ways to control and prevent the spread of HIV, but for many people heart disease and cancer just happen. No matter how well they take care of themselves.

    4. Re:What they need to do... by Oracle+of+Bandwidth · · Score: 1

      The needs of the few outway the needs of the many.

      Me and a friend need a buck from you. There are two of us, and one of you. See how this is kinda flawed?

      I say, anyone capable of forcing him dosen't deserve any rights.

    5. Re:What they need to do... by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      "They need to tell this guy he doesn't have a choice, this is for the better of humanity."

      Who are "They" and how exactly do you propose to enforce this? Oh, and if you set a precedent for imminent domain against human beings, how do you constrain it before it becomes a form of slavery? In fact, how is your proposal not a form of slavery already? Why is it up to the state what's important for humanity, and that's a choice denied the individual?

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    6. Re:What they need to do... by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      >This disease is human kind's biggest biological threat

      Alcohol abuse kills far more. AIDS is WAY down the list. But it changes the sexual milieu in interesting ways, and is therefore regarded with inflated significance.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    7. Re:What they need to do... by NIN1385 · · Score: 1

      I would give you a dollar, but there are people I think it would be much more fun to take a dollar from than me, like people who have billions of dollars. My point is not that we SHOULD force him, but the guy needs to be beaten up by all the people who have HIV, including the children. This disease is horrible and if anything we can do will reduce the amount of people that contract it, we should take whatever means necessary to reduce that number. I guess there is no real winner of this argument, some corporation will just end up paying him tons of money if he does have some kind of cure in him. I do think he is a total asshole though.

      --

      If carrots got you drunk, rabbits would be fucked up. - Comedian Mitch Hedberg R.I.P. 03/30/68-2/24/05
  156. Re:Sex with virgin = AIDS cure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, it's "niglet" or "jiglet".

  157. False Negative by nuintari · · Score: 1

    Or it could be a false negative induced by an as of yet unseen variant in the HIV virus. It has mutated several time in the past, and there are currently several active strains. Most behave the same, but who is to say we won't see one that evades scans, goes dormant, or turns into something completely new?

    I think it is far more likely that we will hear about this in a month when he skin catches on fire, than that he just got over HIV. Not saying it can't happen, just doubting it a lot.

    --

    --Nuintari

    slashdot : where an opinion can be wrong.

  158. Re:Sex with virgin = AIDS cure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, sadly it's true. 6 month babies are raped because of this... it's horrible.

  159. He took my advice by Syberghost · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I told him "walk it off".

    If that hadn't worked, I was prepared to recommend "cowboy up", but looks like it won't be necessary.

  160. Re:How sure? "Normal" life? Ob. X-files reference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You woudn't be able to go back to Mom's basement, but live the life of Ponce de Leon: (thank you Red Wolf)http://www.redwolf.com.au/xfiles/season05/5x0 4.html:

    Mulder: "Ponce de Leon came here 450 years ago looking for the Fountain of Youth."
    Agent Kinsley: "You mean that you think these... that... that that body... The one Agent Scully shot. No!"
    Mulder: "After 400 years in the woods, don't you think they would have adapted perfectly to their environment?"
    Agent Kinsley: "You're just making this up!"
    Mulder: "Why do you say that?"
    Agent Kinsley: "Cause you work on the X-Files and... you just want to write off your motel!"

  161. Gibson Called This One (again) by thatguywhoiam · · Score: 1
    Anyone remember William Gibson's character Shapley? Sounds like that guy...

    He better watch it, wouldn't want to be murdered by fundamentalist crazies from Salt Lake City.

    --
    If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
  162. What's this, then? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Uhm, a donor registration card?

    Right! Now give us your liver!

  163. Another Prediction by William Gibson by Grendel32 · · Score: 1

    Anyone ever read burning chrome or virtual light? There was an individual mentioned in one of those books, or maybe both, joseph smith or something like that. He was discovered to have a natural immunity to the HIV virus, he pretty much sold himself out to the pharmaceutical companies..or maybe they bought him, hard to remember. But he was kind of hailed as the second comming since he brought the cure for one of the worlds greatest plagues. I just think it is interesting that William Gibson had this character in his books and now it has come to pass. Now it needs to be discovered if it is actually true.

  164. Let the market economy solve this.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sure some drug company will be more than happy to pay him a few million for exclusive rights to his blood and/or tissue samples -- if only to make sure that a simple solution to AIDS doesn't materialize. Drug companies have many many millions invested in the current drugs; they should be given a few more years to milk the marketplace before this pandemic is cured

  165. First *verified* case. by Esteanil · · Score: 1

    There have been several cases where africans have claimed to cure themselves of HIV, but this is the first case where it's been possible to verify it with testing.

    --
    I'm a dreamer, the world is my playpen. But hey, I'm a serious person, I can't dream all the time.
  166. Mad Cow kills HIV by Easy2RememberNick · · Score: 1

    Obviously his Mad Cow disease and HIV both fought each other to the death.

  167. Home Remedy by Vinnie_333 · · Score: 1

    Maybe he found something in one of those home remedy books. You know, like a mustard pack, or running the vacumm cleaner while massaging your feet... Hey, they work!

    --

    "We shall party like the Greeks of old! You know the ones I mean." - HedonismBot
  168. Re:Not too interesting but it can be a step forwar by burni · · Score: 1

    We are human-beings, and sex is a basic need we have, the surrogate "masturbation" is fun at all, but it's not the same, it's more fun with a partner,
    you don't call doody the sockpuppet ;) and more interesting sex lasts you live longer,
    and sex more than masturbation makes people happy and more relaxed,

    Condoms when used in the _right_ way, they offer a nearly 100% protection, it's less
    dangerous than driving or flying ^^

  169. Amazing if true by kahrytan · · Score: 1

    I really do believe in the human body and things it is caapble of. If one takes care of one's body, You are likely to never be sick.

    1. Eat Healthy -- ie not mcdonald's.
    2. Take Multi-vitamin supplments.
    3. Drink Soy Protein shakes. If possible, with soy milk.
    4. Ensure you take in essential fatty acids from things like fish oil.
    5. Keep up with anti-oxidants -- Vitamin C, E, B12, Beta carotene, and others. They help protect cells from damage.

      I am saying all this because if this story is true, then this guy's immune system was obviously strong enough to withstand a hiv/aids virus attack.

    --
    \
    1. Re:Amazing if true by CottonEyedJoe · · Score: 1

      Is this a joke? You dont have school age children do you? I eat just as healthy as you, take good stuff, drink and eat lots of soy... etc I'm a cat 3 bicycle racer with 5 wins last year, so I'm in fairly decent shape too... I guess sick AT LEAST three or four times a year from something my kids bring home from school. Eating good and taking your vitamins WILL NOT keep you from getting sick any more than praying alot will.

    2. Re:Amazing if true by DarkProphet · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, I smoke cigarettes, drink more than 5 drinks a week and smoke marijuana. And more-or-less don't take very good care of myself at all. I don't excercise or eat properly and am exposed to all sorts of virulent disease.

      I can't remember the last time I even had a cold. I've never had any disease worse than influenza (not even chickenpox), and I haven't had the flu in over 10 years.

      So, in my eyes at least, a person's resistance to disease matters very little with "taking care" of yourself and much more with your body's ability to fight off disease before it gets a chance to replicate in your body. Apparently these 2 things aren't mutually inclusive.

      Or, I guess you could just say that there are some conditions even too inhospitable for bacteria and viruses ;-)

      --
      What could possibly hurt the security of the American people more than giving our own government the ability to hide its
  170. Why not give him an incentive to come back? by thisissilly · · Score: 1

    How about offering him a 1% royalty on any treatments developed based on studying his immune system?

  171. probably lots of "cured" out there by peter303 · · Score: 1

    At the most only half of sexually promiscious people get infected. This is known from studies of African hookers and gay men. Its not clear why this is so. One or two percent of Caucasians have a mutation that blocks the virus, perhaps from some long ago similar epidemic. Perhaps some of the others are quickly self-cured.

    Even so, a 50% infection rate is serious. Even if the progression to fatallity is four times slower from the new drugs than it was in the early years, lots stil get ill and die.

    1. Re:probably lots of "cured" out there by multipartmixed · · Score: 1

      The epidemic (pandemic, actually) you're postulating may very well have been the Bubonic Plague (Black Death).

      http://www.pbs.org/wnet/secrets/case_plague/interv iew.html
      http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf119/sf119p05.ht m

      --

      Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
  172. Australians, too by ewe2 · · Score: 1

    I recall when they tested all blood supplies about 6-7 years ago to prevent accidental infections like HIV and Hep C (after the horse had bolted naturally), they found something like 4 people who had been infected with HIV via the blood bank but had NOT gone on to develop AIDS. A couple subsequently did after some years but there were still at least 2 that were not. I wonder what happened to them?

    --
    insecurity asks the wrong question irritation gives the wrong answer
  173. even if tests were 99.999% accurate ... by peter303 · · Score: 1

    With tens of millions of people having taken HIV tests, even the tiniest error rate is going to have some false positives and negatives.

  174. Re:Sex with virgin = AIDS cure by FuckTheModerators · · Score: 1

    That may or may not be true. It's a complex issue that can't really be boiled down to a simple statement of belief. Snopes has this to say about it.

    Regardless of veracity, the parent is right in that there's zero humor involved.

  175. He wants to help by elgatozorbas · · Score: 1
    Maybe he doesn't want to for the rest of his life be studied by some scientists.


    He was on TV yesterday, saying he is the luckiest man on earth and he wants to help others by cooperating with doctors.

  176. Full right to choose by glrotate · · Score: 1

    What rights? In 100 years the guy will be dead and nobody will give a rats ass about his "right to choose". If we need to cut this guy open now and do an autopsy, then do it. I hate to be the one to tell you, but "rights" are a fiction, an imaginary construct, not anything real.

  177. He's found! by lordofthechia · · Score: 1

    Not sure how I screwed up the HTML...
    He has come forward.

    --
    Georgia Tech, the leader in Chia(tm) technology.
  178. Does anyone actually follow links... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "He has told the papers he would do anything he could to help find a cure"

  179. Elisa and Western Blot tests are inaccurate. by Paleolibertarian · · Score: 1

    What most people don't know is that both of the tests for HIV don't test for HIV at all but so-called antibodies to HIV. These tests give many false positives. People with hepatitis usually test positive. Pregnent women often test positive. People with the flu often test positive. These tests are almost worthless. The criterion for having AIDS in Africa is to have one of the 20 odd diseases associated with AIDS and a (false?) positive HIV test. More people probably die from the treatment than from the disease. BTW, bottles of AZT come with a skull and crossbones.

  180. Multiple exposure by phorm · · Score: 2, Informative

    The man indicated that he had continued to expose himself to an infected partner after he found he was infected... figuring that he has nothing to lose (which is wrong in many cases, as there are different strains, but I suppose since it's the same partner he'd just be exposing himself to the same).

    So chances are that if he didn't have it, he *should* have gotten it in the three years since 2002. As it is, he's clear.

    As for the antibodies..... I wonder if they could just try injecting his blood into an infected sample specimen and see if it has any effect.

  181. Royalties! by irritating+environme · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I wouldn't do it unless there was an explicit royalty agreement that any drugs made from a "cure" in my blood would give me 20% of profits.

    Drug companies are the real pieces of shit. 50-80% of the budgets are marketing, most of the development costs are assumed by public-sector universities.

    --


    Hey, I'm just your average shit and piss factory.
    1. Re:Royalties! by AGMW · · Score: 1
      I wouldn't do it unless there was an explicit royalty agreement that any drugs made from a "cure" in my blood would give me 20% of profits.

      It would indeed be nice to have some royalties but I reckon he'd be safer to go for a suitable lump sum up front, as there's a good chance they'll find diddly-squat and he'd end up with 20% of zilch!

      --
      Eclectic beats from Leeds, UK
      handmadehands.co.uk
    2. Re:Royalties! by alnjmshntr · · Score: 1

      Surely if the drug companies wanted to maximise profits they would have no interest in finding a cure for HIV/AIDS, since drugs that semi "treat" HIV are also, presumably, very profitable and can be sold to the customer for a number of years before they die, rather than a once off.

      So him helping to find a cure would damage the drug compaines profits.

      --
      If I had created the world I wouldn't have messed about with butterflies and daffodils. I would have started with lasers
    3. Re:Royalties! by Tristan7 · · Score: 1

      That's absolutely not true. About the Development costs assumed by the universities. Look it up; not one drug has EVER been developed and actually brought to the point of manufacture by a university. Typically universities will discover an interesting compound, or possibly an interesting prototype for a new type of inhaler. Drug companies will investigate the researchers and decide whether it's going to be profitable to go through the cost and energy of producing the compound, doing studies to determine correct dosage and delivery method, and then running large studies before finally going through several YEARS of FDA approval. And when all that's said and done, they still licensed the compound from a university in the first place, so now the university is receiving a rather large cut of the sales.

      Drug companies are in buisness to make money. It happens that we, the consumers, like to have the most modern, newest, absolute best drugs; And, the drug companies, wanting to make a buck, oblige. If someone doesn't want to spend the hundreds of dollars a month it costs to purchase the best medicine, then fine, buy asprin, it's cheap. Just because it's your health doesn't make it your right to have free/cheap access to the newest medicine that's cost hundreds of millions of dollars to develop.

    4. Re:Royalties! by karnal · · Score: 1

      Hmmmph.

      Just goes to show that you DON'T work for one of the largest drug manufacturing companies in the world.

      And I do. Insightful, indeed!

      --
      Karnal
    5. Re:Royalties! by irritating+environme · · Score: 1

      That's funny, I just had lunch not a week ago with a friend that works for a drug company. She said exactly what I just said.

      Now I might not have backed up my claims, but of course, you being the insider, pointed to lots of glaring examples to refute me...right...

      50-80% of your costs are advertising, and rarely do any of the largest drug companies exceed 15% of spending in research.

      My roommate was a med student and told me about your drug company salesmen. More kickbacks please! Free golf trip tropical "conferences". Free dinner at a steak house every other night!

      --


      Hey, I'm just your average shit and piss factory.
    6. Re:Royalties! by irritating+environme · · Score: 1

      Of course they don't get developed by the universities. Just like you said, the drug companies pick and choose the drugs and then "bring them to market". So the researchers do proof of concept of the drug's compound and mechanism, and then the companies nab it from the research institution. I'm not going to say that 100% of drugs are like this (I'm sure the drug companies are feverishly searching on their own for dozens of impotency and baldness drug variants), but the drug companies see practically all the profit off of what is essentially public research. Sure they assume some risk, but seeing as how drug companies are the single most profitable sector in the entire economy, I don't think this is charitable.

      And now I'll address your out-of-nowhere tangent. I won't say that drug companies aren't in business to make money. But they also cloak themselves in self-congratulations, all while doing kickback-system sales channels, generic drug suppression, misleading advertising, and devastating capitol-hill lobbying that is all antithetical to competition, commodification of drugs, and inevitably, the health of people.

      --


      Hey, I'm just your average shit and piss factory.
    7. Re:Royalties! by karnal · · Score: 1

      You are talking of anecdotal evidence, and I replied with anecdotal evidence.

      I think we're both fair here.

      You stated a "friend works for a drug company" and "She said exactly what I (you) just said", in addition to somewhat meaningless (due to heresay) statistics.

      I stated I do work for one of the large drug companies. And that you're wrong.

      See? Both of us are right!

      Seriously though, I'm not trying to be an ass, I'm just trying to show that your view isn't necessarily shared by me.

      --
      Karnal
  182. AIDS cure by Grand+Facade · · Score: 1

    1. Take HIV tests until a false positive is shown

    2. Wait 14 months

    3. Take HIV test again for negative result

    4. Profit!!!

    --
    Rick B.
  183. he's gonna make someone else very rich! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They'll be sure to patent the results so that the man who's body actually came up with the cure won't earn a penny from it...

    If it was me, I'd give them the finger too; at least until they change the patent laws to prevent this scenario from happening.

  184. maybe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First, he's not the first. He's the first white person in a western nation. There have been numerous accounts of Africans "shaking off" the virus, somehow. But they don't have access to testing, so it's hard to say.

    Second, the initial tests were not faulty, according to the BBC. The man tried to file charges, but there was no case to make because the test was good.

    Third, not to bad-mouth him or anything, but maybe he's a heroin addict, so maybe that's how he got HIV in the first place. So I wouldn't want people to keep testing my blood if I was needling myself in the first place.

  185. Don't you mean... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Designed by men - for men!"

    Kinda catchy

  186. Incredibly misleading summary by adrianbaugh · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The summary is very misleading. The man has now said, in two national newspapers, that he will help research in any way he can.

    He did earlier refuse to help, but that was at the point where he was still considering suing the doctors because of the initial positive test - obviously you don't expect a second test to come up negative because AIDS generally doesn't just go away, so when it did he naturally thought the first test had been wrong and was pissed off with the doctors. However, later his health authority confirmed that there had been no mistake with either test and he changed his mind and now wishes to help by undergoing further tests.

    So ease off the guy, okay? It's the guy who didn't research the story properly before writing the summary that's the asshole here, not the cured-of-AIDS guy.

    --
    "'I pass the test,' she said. 'I will diminish, and go into the West, and remain Galadriel.'"
    - JRR Tolkien.
  187. Ha.. by JimiSpier · · Score: 0

    I'd make them pay for each drop of blood..

    --
    Jimi Spier
    www.jimispier.com - My tunes
  188. Anyone else noticing the irony...? by Darius+Jedburgh · · Score: 3, Insightful

    No

  189. HL-60 and $$$ by Deanasc · · Score: 1, Interesting
    Back in the 1970's a woman with a very rare case of leukemia donated cells that have been kept alive for decades after her death due to her ailment. They are one of the cornerstones of cancer research and countless therapies have been developed using her cell line as test material. That being said, she didn't get to benefit from her donation. It didn't save her life or make her any more comfortable as she died.

    If I was that guy, knowing that drugs are a 500,000,000,000 dollar a year industry and it could be reasonably assumed that a cure to aids is wortth billions I'd want some considerable financial consideration. Say $100,000,000 down and %10 thereafter.

    --
    I've hit Karma 50 and gotten a Score:5, Troll... I win!
    1. Re:HL-60 and $$$ by jim_deane · · Score: 1


      Are you sure you aren't thinking of the cervical cancer cells taken from Henrietta Lacks (the classic HeLa cell line), a line which has been in use in research all over the world since around her death in the early 1950s?

      She and her family were not aware that her cells were used in research.

      Jim

    2. Re:HL-60 and $$$ by Deanasc · · Score: 1

      It may be possible that I'm confusing the history of HL60 with that of PC12. I do know that the cells are Leukocytes. I'm not sure what kind of cancer Henrietta Lacks had. I'm not a microbiologist but am somewhat smart at science. Unless someone corrects me I think HL stands for Human Luekocycte and not Henrietta Lacks. Still, I am correct in my original hypothesis that the donor patient did not benifit in the donation.

      --
      I've hit Karma 50 and gotten a Score:5, Troll... I win!
  190. hiv immune by Intangion · · Score: 1

    maybe he has that mutated gene that originated in england during the 1600s that made them immune to plague and also HIV (somehow makes the white blood cells resist the infection all together) but if that were the case he probably woundnt have tested positive in the first place.. so i would have to guess there was a lab error ;)

  191. The first corporation by tkr · · Score: 1

    The first corporation that can hunt this guy down, throw a net over him, and patent him will get rich.

  192. You misspelled "James Gunn". by argent · · Score: 1

    This is on older meme than Burning Chrome or even AIDS.

    I think the oldest story I know that's based on a science-fictional approach to this general idea is "The Immortal", a short story (later collected in "The Immortals") by James Gunn.

    Google says there was even a TV series based on the story.

  193. Re:Refused? From the article by jidar · · Score: 1

    It says that in the FA. if you would just READ THE FUCKING ARTICLE you might know what the hell you were talking about.

    --
    Sigs are awesome huh?
  194. Reason for Refusal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He's seeking a patent on his DNA first!

  195. Ob Simpsons Quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Doctor: Mr. Burns, I'm afraid you are the sickest man in the United States. You have everything.
    Burns: You mean I have pneumonia?
    Doctor: Yes.
    Burns: Juvenile diabetes?
    Doctor: Yes.
    Burns: Hysterical pregnancy?
    Doctor: Uh, a little bit, yes. You also have several diseases that have just been discovered -- in you.
    Burns: I see. You sure you haven't just made thousands of mistakes?
    Doctor: Uh, no, no, I'm afraid not.
    Burns: This sounds like bad news.
    Doctor: Well, you'd think so, but all of your diseases are in perfect balance.

  196. Anyone know the false positive rate on HIV test? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's entirely possible he didn't have the disease before he was tested and received a false positive. In fact most medical test have higher false positive rates than false negative ones.

  197. send it the.. by TarrySingh · · Score: 1

    chica's from copa cabana, and he'll strip for a retest! :-)

    --
    Scott McNealy to Michael: "Suck my Sun!" Michael Dell to Scott : "Lick my Dell!"
  198. Time scale? by Kortec · · Score: 1

    There appears to be a discrepancy in the BBC article, just in that this all happened three years ago. Anyone know what gives? I know the British comedians griped about "the national health" in the '70s, but is it really so bad that they wouldn't notice someone possibly curing themselves of AIDS until three years later?

    --
    "My heart is in the work." - Andrew Carnegie
  199. Maybe we're going about this the wrong way... by NeoTwig · · Score: 2, Funny

    Perhaps his partner Juan Gomez is the one we should be looking at. He's the elusive #2!

    1) Contract HIV
    2) Have lots of unprotected sex with Juan Gomez
    3) Profit!!!

  200. Perhaps he's afraid by Emperor+Tiberius · · Score: 1

    Remember The Omega Man?

  201. religious reasons? by l0tu53at3r · · Score: 1

    Maybe he's Catholic/Jewish/Muslim/Zorastanic and thinks that AIDS is God's punishment for the wicked, and that if he helps to circumvent this for anyone he is going against God's will and WILL be damned for certain. Just a thought.

    --
    ---Excuse the bad English, I'm American---
  202. Re:Patent... it, and keep it yourself! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't let anyone get the cure for next 100 years! The HIV was invented by our dear mother nature, to limit the god damn growth of the population. What if there would be vaccines for HIV? There would be 12billion humans in earth already in next year, instead of in five years..

  203. or... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The HIV virus is bellow levels that are 'detectable'. That said their is some very, very, very limited research done at UCSF and a few others that indicate, that if cought soon enough certain "gross" forms of imunotheraps (Fungal based combination therapy for example) can reduce the HIV symplex such that they aren't detectable, and their is some very remote chance that when combined with other modalities from "chinese medicine" (body work, moxibustion, "gross" tonics of who knows what) can help as well. Also these studies have some indication that the black death may inocuate the HIV virus, but again it won't "cure" somone of it. check pubmed. I know a few HIV wonks from a "HIV stearing comitee" also doing reseach at a school who's name rymes with Friscy Who- that sware up and down that when treated as parasyte, and detected soon enough, it can be rendered uninfectious. The efficacy is questionable, still a interesting hypothesis.

  204. Nothing to worry about. by blair1q · · Score: 1

    There's plenty of prior art for this sort of situation. This young man has nothing to worry about. They just want to run a few tests on his brain.

    Benji Mouse: "But first it must be properly prepared..."
    Arthur: "Prepared?"
    Benji: "...prepared, examined... diced..."

  205. Unfortunatly, this is no longer the case by JasonTheBold · · Score: 1

    It has been reported by the BBC that the group of Kenyan prostitutes suspected of developing HIV immunity have now become infected. -Jason

  206. 2 years later by burntash · · Score: 1

    What I would like to know, is why is this news two years old? If there is such a cure why the hell did it take 2 years just for them to report on this "miracle" after it happened. You think they would report this back in 2003. Time is a factor isnt it?

  207. Drug development costs by spineboy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It costs roughly 1 Billion dollars $1,000,000,000) to bring a new drug to the marketplace, after all the FDA testing, long term studies, phase 3 trials are done. Your estimate of the marketing costs is off by a factor of 10.

    --
    ..........FULL STOP.
    1. Re:Drug development costs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      actually it does not cost near that much, it costs a lot yes. but when a company is allowed to put the cost of advertising as R&D... the numbers are inflated.

      im guessing in reality it costs about $50-100 million. and the rest is wasted by marketing companies and ad campaigns.

    2. Re:Drug development costs by irritating+environme · · Score: 1

      Well, if it costs 200 million, then you spend a billion in advertising, and do BS accounting...

      --


      Hey, I'm just your average shit and piss factory.
  208. Re:Sex with virgin = AIDS cure by Slashcrap · · Score: 1

    I have to agree, this is a very serious problem in Africa and not to be laughed at, many children are raped by HIV infected adults because of the same belief you have joked about.

    Something that's even less funny is the way the US is giving money to fight AIDS in Sub-Saharan Africa.

    Unfortunately because the US is a theocracy, portions of this money have to be earmarked for "abstinence" programmes.

    These programmes also campaign against the use of condoms, because that's what Jesus would want. They sponsor billboards which point out that condoms don't offer 100% protection. Abstinence of course does, because there are a lot of other activities that the local population can engage in to distract themselves from their desires - hang out at the mall, go bowling or maybe just go for a drive in their SUVs.

    The end result is that HIV infections in Uganda, which were down to 4% of the population, are now rising rapidly again.

    Oh well, at least they'll still go to heaven when they die. Isn't that just swell?

  209. Bedroom? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I seriously hope you meant basement ;)

  210. I see his point by mdielmann · · Score: 1

    Nothing sucks more in the modern world than knowing that your generous gift is going to make everyone involved in bringing it to everyone else rich but you. This is my biggest gripe about organ donation. I heard that the total amount of money made by various people (recovery, handling, transportation, etc.) in organ recovery runs somewhere around $55,000 US. Why not throw a few grand towards the burial of the person who died to give us this opportunity? It gets even uglier in other cases. If I have a rare disease/condition, the possibilities are endless for the pharmaceutical companies to develop and patent a genetic treatment which will net them billions, and doubtless make the primary researchers wealthy, to boot. And what do I get? Besides a patent on my genes, I get the privelege to pay for the treatment for the rest of my life. This guy doesn't even get that benefit for his altruism, just the warm feeling of having done right (and letting everyone else get rich off of his altruism). If this guy has any brains at all, he'll sign a deal for wads of cash (or part of the profits from the patented treatment) to have some pharmaceutical company have reasonable access to him for the development of that treatment. He has something valuable, and I don't see why he shouldn't get some reward for that value. Someone (probably a number of someones) are going to get rich off a cure for AIDS, he might as well be one of them.

    And yes, I still sign my donor card, and pay for life insurance to help deal with the leftovers when they're done carving me up. I just wish I lived in a country where they paid for blood donation. I hate needles enough that I won't go through that inconvenience without a good reason, and the warm fuzzies won't cut it.

    --
    Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
  211. Sounds like . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    . . . an old TV show called the Immortal starring Christopher George.

    Info

  212. HIV is probably a myth by BalkanBoy · · Score: 0, Troll

    I sent in an article at least couple of years ago about this site, and the story reviewer was at first going to submit the story, then he renegged on it and turned it down. I even got a reply to my email from Dr. Peter Duesberg (professor of Molecular and Cell Biology at the University of California, Berkeley), where I asked him if he is willing to lend facts/credence to the story I submitted on Slashdot by backing up some of the claims that HIV is a myth - which he very well did, and the moderator on Slashdot _still_ decided to turn the story down. He cited some shitty sources where they call Duesberg and others like him "dissidents" (yeah, just like Chomsky I suppose), and said there was enough conflicting opinion that he himself found to reject my story. What a buffoon, I thought... and two years later, someone actually submits a story on a self-healing HIV-positive "patient".

    Is it just me or is there others who find Slashdot to be laughable when it comes to credibility, or even newsworthiness? I think all Slashdot has going for it is a lot of momentum from the past - other than that, I think there's a number of websites that one can go to for higher quality news and more credible stories.

    --
    'A lie if repeated often enough, becomes the truth.' - Goebbels
  213. Moral authority by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't know. Typically, I'm right with you. But, I'm pretty sure I have the moral authority to say that Roy Cohn deserved AIDS. Maybe I'm just being a pissant though.

  214. homo capitalisticus by anonymo · · Score: 1

    "He sought compensation but has apparently been told there is no case to answer because there was no fault with the testing procedure."

    Well, well, he was trying to milk the medical system and he was turned down.

    "He has told the papers he would do anything he could to help find a cure."

    I suppose he wants a hight price for every milliliter of blood or any tissue sample. I think he is looking for the highest bidder.
    He's a typical example of the homo capitalisticus.

    In his place I would offer samples for free but with the GPL: every result that is coming from those samples must be published openly and for free.
    I'm rather sure tha the medical research centres prefere to pay him and keep the result for themself.

  215. To All Sandwich Eaters... by drunkgoat · · Score: 1

    "Now sandwich maker Andrew is to offer himself for medical tests to unlock the secret in his body that has killed off a virus responsible for wiping out 20 million people worldwide since 1981." http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/story_pages/news/n ews3.shtml This probably happens alot and we are just unaware, but by the sounds of this, that guy who just made your quiznos Chicken Carbonara on whole wheat, might have added a little extra ingredient...

  216. Antibody Signature? (IANAD) by IceAgeComing · · Score: 1

    Either way, I'm sure that researchers will find something interesting if he's willing to help out.

    I'm not a doctor, but it makes intuitive sense that there would be an antibody signature specific to some strain of HIV if he had been positive at one point.

  217. In... by Velocir · · Score: 0, Redundant

    ...Soviet Russia, HIV cures YOU

  218. Sounds amazing, but is he truly HIV-negative??? by oarsman17 · · Score: 1

    While Mr. Stimpson's account seems compelling, I would like to know what methods these physicians used or will use to demonstrate that he is truly HIV-negative.

    From TFA, I'm unsure as to whether Mr. Stimpson has zero viral load or boasts no HIV biomarkers in his bloodstream; are there not separate tests for measuring viral load and for biomarkers, or is measuring viral load based on measuring for biomarkers?

    From what I have studied in university (I wish I could provide references now but I can't, so reply if you do have them), a person who has or nearly has zero HIV load in their bloodstream may still have colonies of HIV in their lymph nodes.

    My doubts reside on how this story was reported. We should take Mr. Stimpson's case more seriously if or when a peer-reviewed article concerning either Mr. Stimpson or another subject has been published.

  219. Truth is Stranger than Fiction by lofi-rev · · Score: 1

    Does this sound like Saint Shapely to anyone else?

  220. Obligatory Simpsons quote by limabone · · Score: 1

    Cured Guy: So you're saying I'm indestructible?

    Doctors: No...even the slightest breeze can...

    Cured Guy: Indestructible......

    1. Re:Obligatory Simpsons quote by Random+Guru+42 · · Score: 1

      That cured guy was none other than C. Montgomery Burns. Just for the next time you post that quote...

      --
      Christopher S. 'coldacid' Charabaruk -- coldacid.net
  221. HIV? by danheretic · · Score: 1

    Pshaw, that's nothing. I cured myself of Slashdot once.

    Okay, yes, I relapsed.

  222. Long-term viruses by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 1

    Sure. Hepatitis can lurk for decades without causing illness. Chickenpox can linger symptom-free after a childhood infection only to come back as shingles in adulthood. Some chunks of our DNA have been hypothesized to be the remote descendants of lucky viruses that made themselves immortal thousands of years ago by splicing themselves into reproductive cells.

    DNA trading happens all the time even outside a sexual context. Look up "plasmids", for example.

    1. Re:Long-term viruses by nine-times · · Score: 1
      I've only glanced at some things about plasmids, but I think I had something a bit more sci-fi in mind. I don't mean to suggest this sort of thing in reality, but suppose viruses had long been a... well, a sort tool of evolution. Maybe our bodies developed ways to spread real, expressed genes around to other organisms after birth, and this was, at least to some degree, the cause of the "random mutations" speculated by evolutionary theory.

      Now, the process itself being a bit random, sometimes the results weren't so good. You get something like a "bad interaction". Two strands of DNA, beneficial to each organism, when mixed, cause problems. So your body develops a method for weeding out bad interactions. It tries the new DNA out, and if it starts causing problems, this immune system kicks in and cleans things up a bit. In case of a catastrophic combination, the whole organism dies off, which sort of takes care of the problem-- no one with that combination of genes is going to live long enough to pass it on.

      If there are not problems, though, the new DNA fits into place, and there's not even a symptom. What if this sort of thing happened all the time, and we're just shooting these viruses around with every interaction, but that people are sufficiently similar genetically that it usually doesn't cause any problems.

      Ok, it's a bit of nonsense that I cooked up because I don't really understand these processes, or viruses or plasmids. I guess the overall idea that I had was, what if these things are common, but just don't cause illness in most cases? What if viruses began as a beneficial thing, an aid to evolution? What if it's not proper to think of these viruses as "foreign invaders", but that they're just parts of us that sometimes get out of control? Maybe those are all stupid questions, but I like finding new ways (new to me, at least) of thinking about things.

  223. Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...I think you're the piece of shit. People still have the right to do what they want with their own bodies.
     
    Just like the dildos on /. who think copyright should be abolished because they've never written anything worth reading, you think you have the right to decide whether someone submits to medical tests.
     
    What a fucking retard you are. Wait 'til it's your turn to be strapped to the table.

  224. Cloudy info about HIV and STDs... by Abuzar · · Score: 1

    Looks like info around HIV and STDs is becoming fuzzy:

    Earlier workshops told us to always-always-always use condoms, but in the past few years the line has changed to 'bareback oral is very low risk, but bareback anal (or vaginal) is high risk'. For a while I was getting mixed messages from the two camps, but now they seemed to have settled on the latter.

    About a decade ago many doctors were saying that they believed HIV could be cured if it was hit hard and fast with cocktail drugs in the early stages. The medical community now seems to have abandoned that idea altogether.

    Now there is all this talk about HIV affecting people differently or not at all. I had a friend who died of HIV/AIDS within 4 years of being diagnosed. I have another friend who has been positive for over 22 years now. He occasionally gets sick, but otherwise seems to be fine. Although he dances too much.

    A week ago I went to my doctor and she said that info on herpes is no longer considered accurate, because they now believe that the virus is being shed even when there is no breakout. Not only that, but it's evolved into a form that can cross-infect, that oral herpes can be contracted via genital contact and genital herpes can be contracted with oral contact.

    Seeing as all this info going around is morphing, I'm beginning to get this uneasy feeling that maybe no one really knows what's going on.

  225. Consider the drug companies' role in this by darnok · · Score: 1

    *If* he's holding out on assisting the search for a cure (and there seems to be considerable doubt about that), maybe it's that he's demanding that the details of all research concerning his bod are released to the world immediately. Maybe he's actually not interested in lining the pockets of a drug company with patent-generated money for a cure to something that's killing all his mates. Maybe he wants there to be a generic, low-cost cure that can be given to large numbers of people in Africa, and is leaning on drug companies in such a way to make this happen.

    I could well imagine a drug company saying "No buddy, we want it all for ourselves", then spreading the story that he's a prick simply as a way of applying pressure to get him to comply with their wishes.

  226. NHS tests hum? by t_allardyce · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Not to belittle my own welfare-state but if he had the tests done on the NHS... Im not saying they're incompetent, im just saying that if they cant manage anything else then perhaps a few samples and test results could get mixed up on the way to the lab. The NHS is suffering from new-age management, for example, if some hospitals in an area are not up to standard, the correct course of action is to lower the standard of all the other hospitals. Of course what it needs is more money but we can't do that because then how would we over-pay companies to source out our IT projects which either a) fail or b) aren't needed in the first place. How could we possibly afford to install the latest x-ray machines on the tube (to drive out suicide bombers and make them have to blow themselves up in the queue for the machine instead) or issue everyone with ID cards (in order to create a big black-market) if we go wasting money on hospitals and basic services?

    --
    This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
  227. Another possibility by NaijaGuy · · Score: 1

    He's not the first story I've heard of of someone who had HIV suddenly not having it anymore. Maybe something about his body is different enough that it could have "cured itself," but maybe something else cured him. God, anyone? Oh, pardon me...forgot this was Slashdot. Wouldn't want to ruffle anyone's delicate feathers now, would we?

    1. Re:Another possibility by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      Why would God cure this man?

      Frankly, when people such as yourself bring up this idea, I find it to be sick and callous. There are hundreds of thousands of people dying every month of this disease around the world, and this one guy is apparantly cured and it's God? Only if God is one sick fucker. Otherwise, I'm going to have to believe that God just doesn't give a fuck anymore, and just like he didn't save the Americans from the Saudi/Afganis, and just like he didn't save the Iraqis from the Americans, he didn't save this gay guy from his AIDS.

      --
      It's been a long time.
  228. Re:anyone bashing this guy is a piece of shit them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > Everyone knows how it gets transmitted.

    Yes, most AIDS transmission is from spouse to spouse, through heterosexual contact.
    Following that, most transmission is from mother to fetus.

  229. Re:Not too interesting but it can be a step forwar by Trevahaha · · Score: 1

    I hope you're not suggesting to wear two condoms at once. That's very bad advice and actually increases the risk for tearing. But yes, you could wear a thicker condom.

  230. Ob. Spider-man Quote by CrazyTalk · · Score: 1

    "Is he strong? Listen Bud
    He's got radioactive blood"

  231. everyone knows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Everyone knows the cure for HIV is to have intercourse with a virgin. ...right?

  232. Like a punchline by tsm_sf · · Score: 1

    I also have no problem with pointing out the hypocrisy of those who complain that others don't do enough to help, when almost certainly they themselves could do more to help.

    The millionaire turns to the bum and says "well, you're not doing anything either."

    --
    Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
  233. Now the WHO will have to invent a new super-virus! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...now that their product designed to cull the population of the 3rd world has been pwn3d!

  234. Give him AIDS again by illest503 · · Score: 1


    How much more obvious could the next step be?

  235. Re:First? What about the African Prostitutes et.al by Antaeus+Feldspar · · Score: 1

    Well, you're conflating two different things. If all tests were 100% accurate (which they aren't, of course, but just to illustrate the difference) then what makes the African prostitutes notable is that, under circumstances where probability would seem to make it almost a certainty that they would contract the virus, they never did. What makes this man different, and of interest, is that he apparently did contract the disease -- and then fought it off, something no other person has ever been alleged to do.

    Now, unfortunately, by far the most probable explanations are that the 2002 tests were false positives or that the 2003 tests were false negatives. However, the third explanation, that his immune system did after all entirely eliminate the disease, is very exciting, and while we should not get our hopes up too high we should definitely be learning anything we can from this man's case.

    --
    If people are to respect the law, perhaps the law should begin by respecting the people.
  236. nice sig by Joe+the+Lesser · · Score: 1

    Mrs. Smegma, will you please stand up?

    *bang*

    And thus is demonstrated the importance of not standing up.

    --
    "I only speak the truth"
    Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
  237. I'll tell you why he doesn't want to get tsted... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Enough with the testing!
    First the Adamantium skeleton (that must've hurt like a bitch), then the claws (you know how much those things sting?!?), and lets not talk about the memory issue (worse at keeping stuff than a Sony MS!)... and NOW THIS ??? Forget it!

  238. thank you by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    for rephrasing exactly what i said

    i see you have a stick up on your shoulder about anthropomorphization

    you need to relax, it's just mental shorthand, this isn't a scholarly journal around here, in case you haven't noticed

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  239. Ransom? by BlueCollarCamel · · Score: 1

    He's holding us for ransom against HIV. Brilliant!

    --
    1&1 - Cheap domain and web hosting.
  240. Trying to resist, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In Soviet Russia, HIV cures itself of YOU!

  241. In Short by geekoid · · Score: 1

    I found out I won't be able to make money suing, so ok, I'll help now.

    The man is either stupid or on greedy S.O.B.

    In what way would not getting tested help him with any legal action? Either they confirm the negative result, or not.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    1. Re:In Short by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right, because all human beings are entirely rational, even in the face of a terminal and devastating disease.

      You are an idiot.

    2. Re:In Short by adrianbaugh · · Score: 1

      The bloke thought the doctors had made a pretty devastating mistake. In that case there was no wonderful research to be done, he had just never had AIDS. I think most people would sue the people responsible if they'd had their lives ruined by being told they had AIDS when in fact the test was just wrong. A test with such an impact is something you have to take time over and be damned sure you get right, or face the legal consequences.

      When it turned out that both tests were correct, and that there was truly something extraordinary going on, then he was very eager to help.

      --
      "'I pass the test,' she said. 'I will diminish, and go into the West, and remain Galadriel.'"
      - JRR Tolkien.
  242. In Soviet Russia... HIV cures you! (no msg) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    no message here.

  243. Old news.. by StikyPad · · Score: 1

    Magic Johnson did this years ago...

  244. go figure........ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.

  245. Wait, what? by aurifex · · Score: 0

    If the man's immune system fought off the HIV, then he didn't cure anything. If I get over a flu, do I announce to the world that I have "cured the flu"?

    The title is misleading.

  246. Then there's the case of Christine Maggiore by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tested positive for HIV in 1992, then retested and came up negative. She since has spoken and written against the HIV=AIDS orthodoxy, and has a website at http://www.aliveandwell.org/. She's been healthy and apparently AIDS-free for over a decade without antiretrovirals, got married and had two kids. Many detractors claim she never had HIV at all.

    A few months ago, her 3 year-old daughter died, and the coroner (knowing of Christine's prior diagnosis) ruled the cause AIDS related pneumonia. So if the coroner is *right* -- Christine has been healthy and non-progressing but infected since 1992 -- and like every long-term non-progressor she has not taken the antiretrovirals.

    So Christine's detractors want it both ways now: Christine has HIV/AIDS, she's sick enough that her illness killed her daughter, YET, she hasn't progressed herself without treatment.

  247. "Snow Crash" too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    n/t

  248. Unless... by HermanAB · · Score: 1

    he did not have AIDS in the first place, this could be a useful discovery. He should donate a few litres of blood to study. Though on the other hand, there are too many people in the world - the last thing we need now is a cure for AIDS.

    --
    Oh well, what the hell...
  249. A new frontier for linguistics by JavaRob · · Score: 2, Funny

    Come on, it's not that complicated:

    He started out in the first person, thinking "I'm disease-free!". But then the doctor told him in the second person, "nope, you've got HIV." Finally, the news tells us in the third person, "well, he doesn't have HIV now...".

    Obviously, we've got a lot left to learn about how HIV is transmitted from person to person. At least he's not as tense now as he was in the past.

    [wait, are you laughing with me or laughing at me?]

  250. How is this a valid position? by StarKruzr · · Score: 1

    Yes, the guy needs to be able to live a normal life. This is not incompatible with being given blood tests say, every month and being compensated for it. Your entire life you could have the knowledge that just being alive and allowing doctors to study you, you are assisting research into a horrible disease.

    But because he wants to be a stubborn little bitch, he's going to deny science the ability to find a cure? How is that REMOTELY ethically defensible? A couple of blood tests and tissue samples aren't going to kill him, for god's sake.

    --

    +++ATH0
  251. Jesus Fucking Christ. by StarKruzr · · Score: 1

    The CDC (or British equivalent) would turn him into a lab rat or worse.

    What does this actually MEAN? You heard this phrase in movies and therefore you assume it is an actual real phenomenon.

    What the hell do you think they're going to do to him? Lock him in a cage and hook pick lines up to him for the rest of his life? What would be GAINED from this? Nothing! He's a high profile person now and even if you thought you could try something like that he would be missed VERY quickly.

    --

    +++ATH0
    1. Re:Jesus Fucking Christ. by ViciousCircuit · · Score: 1

      I'm not relying on movies. I'm relying on history. Human beings pick at whatever intrigues them whether the subject is willing or not. We are curious creatures and our need to figure out why HE doesn't have HIV anymore, why HIS body fought it off, will cause us to find a way to test him over and over until we are satisfied. I'm not saying he would be locked in a cage literally. I'm saying he would be hospitalized or harassed to compliance. My point isn't the overblown science-fiction movie you're making it out to be.

      --
      "To infinity and beyond?" I just don't get how that's poossible, but whatever you say, man.
  252. Re:First? What about the African Prostitutes et.al by StikyPad · · Score: 1

    Woops!

    "Sorry Fred, we thought, you know.. since you made it across the highway the first time you were probably invulnerable to cars."

  253. The dangers of quoting TFA without READING TFA... by Universe+Man · · Score: 1

    "The trust said the tests were accurate but had been unable to confirm Scotsman Mr Stimpson's cure because he had declined to undergo further tests.

    "A statement from the trust said: "This is a rare and complex case. When we became aware of Mr Stimpson's HIV negative test results we offered him further tests to help us investigate and find an explanation for the different results.

    "So far Mr Stimpson has declined this offer."

  254. Re:Sex with virgin = AIDS cure by Maltheus · · Score: 1

    Somehow, I don't think the people who do that read this site (or read at all for that matter).

  255. Re:First? What about the African Prostitutes et.al by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is a Gary Larson cartoon.

  256. "we make ourselves sick - make ourselves better by cannuck · · Score: 1

    Rather than jumping to conclusions - here are the possible scenarios for the alleged "reversal":

    Scenario A: The first diagnostic test was/is not valid/reliable (50% of medical diagnostic tests are not valid/reliable - they don't test for what they are supposed to test for).

    Scenario B: The results of the first diagnostic test was unclear - so personal data collected from questionnaire that person to be tested filled in - is used to make decision - whether positive or negative. For example, homosexual or injection of drugs - then decision for positive test result.

    Scenario C: The person evaluating the first test results simply misread the test results - wasn't positive.

    Scenario D: The first test results were simply "cooked" - that is a lie.

    Scenario E: The followup test which showed the "reversal" because the diagnostic test was/is not valid/reliable (50% of medical diagnostic tests are not valid/reliable - they don't test for what they are supposed to test for).

    Scenario F: The results of the followup diagnostic test was unclear - so personal data collected from questionnaire that person to be tested filled in - is used to make decision - whether positive or negative. For example, homosexual or injection of drugs - then decision for positive test result.

    Scenario G: The person evaluating the followup test results simply misread the test results - wasn't negative ... it's really positive.

    Scenario H: The followup test results were simply "cooked" - that is a lie.

    Scenario I: This individual did have HIV but decided to eliminate the HIV - "Mind Over Matter" Google medical Dr. Lewis Mehl Madrona about "we make ourselves sick - we can make ourselves better".

    Other Scenarios?

  257. IP Law by zekt · · Score: 1

    Now here's a few interesting questions.
    1. If something is being invented as a result of this, can the guy claim prior art?
    2. If this guy has 'evolved' a cure which is being actively perused by another research
          agency, can they patent infringment on him.

    or

    3. Is this just a nonsensical argument.

    --
    In my next incarnation, I hope to come back as a code monkey.
  258. The truth........ by Bladestorm · · Score: 1

    I suggest everyone here read the articles linked in the site below before you come to any conclusions. http://www.buildfreedom.com/aidsdir.htm

  259. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  260. Or maybe... by Peaker · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Maybe, Aids is in fact the largest mistake in medical history.

  261. Re:Not too interesting but it can be a step forwar by burni · · Score: 1

    Yes you&#180;re right, it is to be missunderstood,
    but it&#180;s not what I really wanted to say, what I really wanted to say with
    "or combine twice"

    should mean

    "use one condom for the vaginal intercourse and the other for anal intercourse,
    if you combine both types of intercourse, so there is no transfer of bacteria
    from one area, exspecially the anus, to the vagina, because it can cause
    painfull infections within the urogenital tract",

    technically this mostly applys to straight pairs ;)

  262. Obviously has the delta 32 mutation of CCR5 gene by clovis · · Score: 1

    Watch more television:

    There a know mutation that apparently protects against HIV, and it perhaps not coincidentally protects against bubonic plague

    http://www.pbs.org/wnet/secrets/case_plague/

  263. Lab Rat? by NoEvidenZ · · Score: 1

    If i found out that i was HIV Positive, then a year later i found out that i was cured, i'd be the first person to volunteer me as a lab rat.

  264. Not the first by bgspence · · Score: 1

    'Life's Grace - Musings on the Essence of Social Change' is a book published in 1994 by a friend of mine, Fran Peavey. In it she writes about being diagnosed HIV-positive and then retested and found HIV-negative. There was a documentary on TV about her and a number of others with similar stories.

    Betsy Rose wrote the song, 'Oh Hell, I guess you're well' about Fran for her recovery celebration.

  265. Man Cures Himself of HIV? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    2 words: JOHNNY MNEUMONIC

  266. next... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ok he's cured himself... now... someone please give him a haircut.

  267. Is it possible that another condition cured him. by halalalikwan · · Score: 0

    I've often wondered if there is anyone with LUPUS that has ever contracted full blown AIDS. Lupus is essentially the opposite, where the immune system is in overdrive and even attacks the patients healthy body cells. Still a bad disease but I wonder if any researchers have thought about this.

    --
    Go ahead mod my karma bad, just remember what karma is fuckers!!!!!!!!!
  268. Re:Sex with virgin = AIDS cure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    this is slashdot, when someone says "virgin" they're talking about 30 year olds still living in their parents bedroom, not children.

    Living in their parents bedroom? Thats just creepy man. What the fuck? That reminds me of Laslo from "Real Genius". I can just see some 30 year old Napoleon Dynamite come walking into his parents bedroom while they're humping, say "Hi" and give a quick wave, then proceed to vanish into their closet.

  269. Call me a pessimist... by dosh8er · · Score: 1

    ... But my only question to the slashdot community is... and this is a cold thought:

    What if you had the key to solving a sickness, that by the standards of mere numbers and statistics, has been responsible for the deaths of millions? Playing God, are we? Irradicate an illness which in some notion, has kept Mother Earth's human population at check. People will think what they will, but if you had the power, what would you do? Be a good ol' humanitarian, or would you deny the gift (or curse, if you will)? Think about all the lives that would be saved, think about the effect it could have on the population.

    Next on slashdot: How one man continues to live after 246 years...

    Everybody wants to be immortal... the notion of an after-life... increasing life expectancy.

    Birth Control, Abstainence- do those sound familiar? Rape happens every day, as well as murder, theft, domestic violence, car accidents, mental scorn from peers, death, the list goes on...

    ...AND LIFE.

    ("...Mom's gonna fix it all soon. Mom's coming 'round to bring it back the way it oughta be")

    --
    This useless space for sale, inquire at front desk.
  270. Getting Healed is old news by gregmckone · · Score: 1

    There have been reports of people getting healed of HIV for years. This is nothing new. This phenomenon is featured in a film called "transformations" by the sentinel group. Many people have been completely healed from HIV after praying to Jesus for such healing. It isn't the sort of thing that a mega-corp can put in a bottle and make millions with, but it is the sort of thing that has given people back their lives. Healing is good, any day of the week. They don't call Jesus "the great physician" for nothing. :-)

    Greg.

    --
    "Sometimes you've got to kick at the darkness till it bleeds daylight" Bruce C0ckburn
  271. Geez. HIRE the guy. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

    If this guy has a special, extremely rare, ability that can save millions of lives, why are people trying to shame him into volunteering or talking about kidnapping and enslaving him?

    HIRE him. Pay him some BIG BUCKS.

    You don't expect doctors to work for free.

    You don't expect drug researchers to work for free.

    You don't expect drug company executives to work for free.

    Why should you expect this guy to work for free?

    Which is worth more to a drug company trying to come up with an AIDS cure? A better-than-average CEO? Or the guy with the immune system that apparently enabled him to recover from a HIV infection?

    If he's worth more, PAY him more. Offer him 110% of the CEO's salary, including an equivalent bonus package: Say, stock options. A big bonus and a cut if they develop one or more successful and profitable drugs or treatments. A couple years guaranteed minimum employment and a golden parachute if they decide after that to lay him off.

    THEN see if he says no.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  272. Cured but won't come in ... by Harry_Az · · Score: 1

    Be skeptical. Perhaps his immune system is so far gone that he cannot make antibodies to hiv. He could have a false negative test. There are many possibilities and without his cooperation it is impossible to judge the claim as valid.

  273. Hoax .... by WalterODimm · · Score: 1

    Twins?

  274. Bzzzt by Aumaden · · Score: 1

    Sorry, wrong answer, thanks for trying to play.

    Try reading before posting next time. My point was the GPs analogy was flawed. This isn't a case where just about anyone can help. There are millions of people who can give money or time to help the homeless. This is a case where exactly *1* person may have the answer to stopping this disease. Andrew Stimpson is the only fully documented case of successfully curing HIV infection.

  275. Re:Unless...you RTFA'd by chawly · · Score: 1

    If you read the article, you'd know he's a Scot. It was in Scotland that the famous phrase "There ain't no free lunch" was invented. "Donate a few liters of blood" !!!??? As a Scot, I have to say that I'm shocked, I tell you. Shocked.

    --
    How many beans make five, anyhow ? ... Charles Walmsley
  276. Re:Unless...you RTFA'd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shocked? Yes, I guess the loss of Scotch from a few litres of blood would be rather costly...

  277. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  278. Man beats AIDS by kuddliohm · · Score: 1

    The blokes 25, male and from Glasgow. How did he contract the virus? Now, he could have got it many ways but the most probable for this profile is through sharing needles and the use of heroin. The guy's said he'll take part in medical experiments but that's just talk. It would seem that he has not physically appeared for these experiments/research. If I was on heroin I would not be seen dead (and that's the only way) in a hospital or any state-run institution. The question that begs to be asked is how can someone on smack and with the attendant health problems (lack of food and personal hygiene and proper rest) defeat HIV? Anything to do with Heroin?

  279. Re:Sex with virgin = AIDS cure by Sigg3.net · · Score: 0

    So, maybe we should send down some top notch /.'ers to save the children!

  280. you're judging reflex actions reported 4th hand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    give it a fucking rest
    first thing I'd do after getting the news is go on vacation
    no interviews
    no tests
    just fucking

  281. Re:Unless...you RTFA'd by chawly · · Score: 1

    You got that half right. I said that a few drops of SCOTS blood would not be free, and I implied therefore that these same few drops would be rather costly. I put no price on the SCOTCH that they would certainly contain - would certainly represent a considerable price increase though. Have a happy day nathless.

    --
    How many beans make five, anyhow ? ... Charles Walmsley