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."
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.
From TFA:
HIV != AIDS just to let you know
HIV is a precursor to AIDS
Gene Found In Black Death Survivors Stops HIV:
Posted by Zonk on Friday October 28, @08:37PM
He was going in for repeat tests every two months, so his status is well documented.
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.
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.
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.
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".
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
http://www.accessexcellence.org/WN/SUA04/natural_i mmunity_HIV.html
for more on what your saying
We played dungeons and dragons for 3 hours.....then i was slain by an elf
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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
It's a quote. Tony Hancock. Classic British comedy from the 50s.
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:
Using HTML in email is like putting sound effects on your phone calls. Just say <strong>no</strong>.
That's even assuming that the story was reported accurately, which you also don't know.
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.
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."
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"]
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.
3 40,00.html#121
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,,2087-1870
"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
So, no step 4 then?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
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.
y Id=845521
There is a well know comedian called Pieter-Dirk Uys who campaigns against this horror:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?stor
I saw him when he played in London and it was heartbreaking, makes you think how lucky you really are.
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 ]
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
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