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.
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
From TFA:
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.
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?
He's a witch!!!
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.
Actually, knowing a bit about the mechanisms both the Yersinia pestis bacteria and HIV use to cause illness, it's not surprising that developing a resistance to one causes resistance to the other. Both attack the same T cells in the immune system, and both even bind to the same CD4 receptor of the T cells. Thus, mutations in the CD4 receptor that are still functional to the organism but disallow the binding by the pathogen would create a form of immunity.
Certainly, not every form of plague immunity would translate to HIV immunity, but because of the similarities between the two pathogens, some types do transfer.
A PINT! That's nearly a whole armful.
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."
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.
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.
To be honest, with the 5 to 20 year dormancy, HIV is rather well suited for a host with a reproductive cycle that starts at in the early to mid teens.
Except that babies are usually infected by their mothers. And then die well before reproductive age.
My Karma: ran over your Dogma
StrawberryFrog
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
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The summary is very misleading. The man has now said, in two national newspapers, that he will help research in any way he can.
He did earlier refuse to help, but that was at the point where he was still considering suing the doctors because of the initial positive test - obviously you don't expect a second test to come up negative because AIDS generally doesn't just go away, so when it did he naturally thought the first test had been wrong and was pissed off with the doctors. However, later his health authority confirmed that there had been no mistake with either test and he changed his mind and now wishes to help by undergoing further tests.
So ease off the guy, okay? It's the guy who didn't research the story properly before writing the summary that's the asshole here, not the cured-of-AIDS guy.
"'I pass the test,' she said. 'I will diminish, and go into the West, and remain Galadriel.'"
- JRR Tolkien.
Well.
The President, the VP, Attorney General Gonzalez and a cooperative bunch at the Pentagon and the various intelligence services have decided to kidnap people and imprison them around the world, with various flavors of continual torture and mind breaking, because they believe national security trumps "human rights" and established law.
What's the moral difference between that, and grabbing "Patient Omega" in the name of finding an immunity factor for a disease killing millions? To up the stakes "24" style, what if HIV mutates and finds an easier vector? How about then?
As a libertarian, small "l", I believe that patient Omega here has the right to refuse to cooperate. However, we've collectively flushed human rights away for the sake of "security", in exchange for which we've got a lot of dreamed-up terrorist plots from men under the knife. In the case of Omega, we could actually stop a superepidemic.
Kidnapping is moral for the sake of fear, but not for saving millions or billions of lives? This is not an idle question in philosophy class. This is real and it is now. We've decided collectively that abduction and torture for an individual's lifetime is okay if we're afraid. Given that, what's the problem with putting Omega under the microscope, even against his will?
Under disaster conditions in Louisiana, people are being blocked by the armed forces and some private killers hired by the U.S. from returning to their homes. Force? Yup. No one cares.
Bush has straightforwardly declared he wants martial law and dictator powers if avian flu hits the U.S. Soldiers will grab people and lock them away, people will be shot if a soldier believes they warrant death. How is it okay to remove EVERYONE'S human rights if a bird flu epidemic hits, but not okay to drag one guy in for testing if the epidemic is HIV? Remember, HIV has killed millions. It's just not a quick as avian flu. HIV hits people doing naughty things, in the view of moralists, so it's not a priority?
"Ethics" is about more than fetuses and stem cells. Ethics is what we decide to care about, and we have to decide every day. Who gets shot, who gets their knees broken, who loses their freedom if we decide it should be so?
I think he has a right to refuse to be tested, but I still think he should do it within reason. I think they should pay him a premium for his time though. Altruism is all well and good, but considering most drug research appears to be, primarily, for the purpose of enriching those that pay for the research, I see no reason why he should not be compensated.