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.
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.
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!!!
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.
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
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.
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.
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
..and I eat well every day and am finicky about food when children are starving all over the world. Oh no, the horror.
But you don't have the ability to end world hunger. This guy could potentially advance our knowledge of the AIDS virus. Instead of doing that, though, he cries to himself about the "emotional trauma" of his experience, sues someone, and totally ignores the fact that millions of people are affected by this disease. Moreover, those millions of people weren't infected because of a choice they made, but because of a choice their parents made! But those million's suffering apparently pales in insignificance next to this guy's trauma....
My point wasn't addressing the inherent inequality in our reality, it was addressing this guy's selfish and stupid behavior. Nevermind the fact that he does nothing, it's that he does nothing and sues someone! He knows first hand the trauma of this disease, but he's so self centered that he can't look out at the world and see all the good he could do with a little self sacrifice.
Uh, no. He sued them when the first negative test came back, on (what would normally be) the sound theory that was evidence that the original positive test had been botched. The hospital then did extensive testing on both the positive and negative samples, at which point they came to the stunning conclusion that both results were correct. The lawsuit ended at that point.
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."
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
That's even assuming that the story was reported accurately, which you also don't know.
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!"
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.
First of all, nobody as far as I have seen has claimed he actually sued someone, only that he "sought compensation", which may very well include nothing more than writing a letter to the appropriate authorities stating his case and asking for it to be considered.
Second, have you personally verified that that is even accurate reporting?
Third, do you know his reason was "emotional trauma" and not for instance real economic impacts caused by the original diagnosis (such as cashing in his pension and spending money left and right because he had good reason to believe he didn't need it - for what you know he could have given his entire pension to charity)? The article also mentions him becoming suicidal and depressed, which may very well have affected his work and had economic impacts.
You're making unsubstantiated claims about this guys motivations which you have no basis for.
My point wasn't addressing the inherent inequality in our reality, it was addressing this guy's selfish and stupid behavior. Nevermind the fact that he does nothing, it's that he does nothing and sues someone! He knows first hand the trauma of this disease, but he's so self centered that he can't look out at the world and see all the good he could do with a little self sacrifice.
Quote from the article: "He has told the papers he would do anything he could to help find a cure."
So how exactly is it you know that he is doing nothing? You are again assuming one part of the article is true without any corroborating evidence while ignoring another part of the article and assuming the worst.
I'm not saying you can't be right, merely that you are jumping to an awful lot of conclusions with essentially no evidence.
News just in, he's *still* going to die...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
These tests are redundant to prevent misdiagnosis; I know, because I've got a "false positive" condition that comes up as AIDS too often. Rather than going to one source, look to others for more information.
3 40,00.html#121
Then look up "John Moore" in the "human patent" case to see what this poor sap is in for...
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1870
"Stimpson was tested three times in August 2002 at the Victoria clinic for sexual health in central London and the results showed he was producing HIV antibodies to fight the disease."
"In October 2003, after impressing doctors with his good health, Stimpson was offered a new test, which came back negative. Further tests in December 2003 and March last year also proved negative."
"The tests were re-checked by the Chelsea and Westminster Healthcare NHS Trust when Stimpson threatened litigation believing there must be a mistake, but the results confirmed all the tests had been accurate."
"Eustace? Eustace? Are you there? Are you there?" = John Leeming
So, no step 4 then?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
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
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
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
Uh, no. He sued them when the first negative test came back, on (what would normally be) the sound theory that was evidence that the original positive test had been botched. The hospital then did extensive testing on both the positive and negative samples, at which point they came to the stunning conclusion that both results were correct. The lawsuit ended at that point.
So, in order to cover their legal arses, the hospital came up with this miracle?
1. Botch HIV test
2. Get sued
3. Generate Hocus Pocus theory
4. Profit (or at least don't lose a few million)
Just another day in Paradise
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.
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.
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...
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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?
The Liberties of One outweigh the needs of the many.
Period.
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.........
It doesn't mean they don't try breeding every night, it's just that he does not get pregnant...
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.
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.
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
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?
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!!!
The world according to SComps
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.
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?]