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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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!
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.
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
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.
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?