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."

Comments

How sure?

[jrockway]

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?

Re:How sure?

[onepoint]

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

Most likely explanation

[Zog The Undeniable]

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.

It's not surprising

[ReformedExCon]

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.

he's not the first

[PermanentMarker]

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 ?

First? What about the African Prostitutes et.al.?

[Xyleene]

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)

Re: The real deal.

[EddyPearson]

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)

Re:Infect Him Again

[RobbieGee]

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.

Re:Refused?

[erroneus]

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.

Re:Science subject

[Seigen]

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.