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."
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.
And who can guarantee the first tests he made were REALLY positive?
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.
Lets infect him again and see if he can go 2 for 2. -Monty
Maybe he should patent himself, his DNA and other things ;)
Does this guy also have a skeleton laced with Adamantium...?
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.
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.
"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!
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.
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.
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.
Monstar L
From TFA:
Gene Found In Black Death Survivors Stops HIV:
Posted by Zonk on Friday October 28, @08:37PM
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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...
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
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?
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.
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!
He's a witch!!!
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.
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.
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
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
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.
J.D. Shapely???
All is fair in love and war...
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
But does he weigh more than a duck?
Integrate Keynote and LaTeX
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I got better...
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
Upon performing further tests, they subsequently returned results of positive, negative, flegative, bogative, rogative and spigative.
My other processor is big-endian.
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
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???)
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
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.
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
or maybe the virus is just using the Sony rootkit
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.
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."
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?
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
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.
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!"
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
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.
News just in, he's *still* going to die...
Could it simply be the case that this guy has the CCR 5 Delta 32 gene, which conveys AIDS immunity?
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.
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.
I just hope he brought enough cure for everyone :)
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.
- 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.
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.
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.
...and several posters seem to know more from other news sources than the BBC. Care to post some links? Thx!
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.
The parent is correct - The report I saw claimed that he had declined to be retested. This is not an editorial error.
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.
He had sex with a virgin...
/. we're of course all smooth talking ole devils that get laid constantly with only interruptions for sleep -and very seldom coital interruptions too ;)
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
I hadn't the slightest objection to his spending his time planning massacres for the bourgeoisie... (P.G. Wodehouse)
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.
-Rob
Biblical fiscal responsibility
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.
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.
... and while you're at could you put this yellow spandex uniform and fake mutton chops on please.
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.
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"]
Clearly God must smile upon this slightly more intelligently designed being.
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
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
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.
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.
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)
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
... 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
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
$sys$HIV... insertion of media...
Nah, too easy.
"MY APOCALYPTIC TENOR HAS NOT BEEN DISPELLED!" - T-Rex, qwantz.com
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
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.
... 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.
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
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.
... sometimes meet in a book.
Science and Fiction
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur
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.
"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.
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
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.
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.
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
Logan, Weapon-X?
I write code.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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.
The PTO has just granted a man a patent for his T Cell structure... he has partnered with Sony to prevent unlicensed use.
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
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
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.
g hts/011025_ccr5.shtml
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/highli
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)
it comes in pints?
[hides]
/. is what happens when geeks talk. get used to it.
HIV positive...HIV positive not....HIV positive....HIV positive not...
The needs of many outweigh the needs of the few. Period.
-M
when you see the word 'Linux', drink!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
sure
Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
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.
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 ]
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.
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?
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).
-Eric
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
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.
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.........
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
Surely you dont (value) money over human lives?
Corporations do.
Don't just stand there, get that other dog!
It doesn't mean they don't try breeding every night, it's just that he does not get pregnant...
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Obviously his Mad Cow disease and HIV both fought each other to the death.
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
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, ;) and more interesting sex lasts you live longer,
you don't call doody the sockpuppet
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 ^^
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.
\
How about offering him a 1% royalty on any treatments developed based on studying his immune system?
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.
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
With tens of millions of people having taken HIV tests, even the tiniest error rate is going to have some false positives and negatives.
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.
He was on TV yesterday, saying he is the luckiest man on earth and he wants to help others by cooperating with doctors.
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.
Not sure how I screwed up the HTML...
He has come forward.
Georgia Tech, the leader in Chia(tm) technology.
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.
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.
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.
Dead people don't spend money.
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.
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.
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.
No
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.
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!
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???
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 ;)
The first corporation that can hunt this guy down, throw a net over him, and patent him will get rich.
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.
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?
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?
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!"
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
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!!!
Remember The Omega Man?
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---
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..."
The world according to SComps
It has been reported by the BBC that the group of Kenyan prostitutes suspected of developing HIV immunity have now become infected. -Jason
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?
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.
Here, in Canada, if someone died because you refused to help him, you'll go to jail...
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.
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?
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?
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.
"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.
"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...
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.
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.
Does this sound like Saint Shapely to anyone else?
Cured Guy: So you're saying I'm indestructible?
Doctors: No...even the slightest breeze can...
Cured Guy: Indestructible......
Pshaw, that's nothing. I cured myself of Slashdot once.
Okay, yes, I relapsed.
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.
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.
*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.
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?
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.
"Is he strong? Listen Bud
He's got radioactive blood"
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.
How much more obvious could the next step be?
Flamebait? Slashdot mods are hilarious. If mine is flamebait, what exactly is the post I was responding to?
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.
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.
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)
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
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.
He's holding us for ransom against HIV. Brilliant!
1&1 - Cheap domain and web hosting.
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
Magic Johnson did this years ago...
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
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.
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...
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?]
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
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
Woops!
"Sorry Fred, we thought, you know.. since you made it across the highway the first time you were probably invulnerable to cars."
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
"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."
Somehow, I don't think the people who do that read this site (or read at all for that matter).
Rather than jumping to conclusions - here are the possible scenarios for the alleged "reversal":
... it's really positive.
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
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?
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.
I suggest everyone here read the articles linked in the site below before you come to any conclusions. http://www.buildfreedom.com/aidsdir.htm
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.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Maybe, Aids is in fact the largest mistake in medical history.
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.
Yes you´re right, it is to be missunderstood,
;)
but it´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
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/
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.
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.
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.
'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.
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
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.
... But my only question to the slashdot community is... and this is a cold thought:
...AND LIFE.
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...
("...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.
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
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
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.
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.
Twins?
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.
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 ?
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.
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.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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?
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 ?
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;