Man Cures Himself of HIV? 909
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."
Refused? (Score:5, Informative)
Editorial error (Score:5, Informative)
From TFA:
Re:How sure? (Score:3, Informative)
HIV is a precursor to AIDS
Related /. Article (Score:2, Informative)
Posted by Zonk on Friday October 28, @08:37PM
Re:Infect Him Again (Score:5, Informative)
He was going in for repeat tests every two months, so his status is well documented.
No need to ask (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Refused? (Score:2, Informative)
From TFA:
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."
A trust spokeswoman added: "We urge him, for the sake of himself and the HIV community, to come in and get tested.
Maybe... (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Patent...MOD UP!!!! (Score:1, Informative)
Re:First? What about the African Prostitutes et.al (Score:5, Informative)
Addendum: Prostitutes lose HIV immunity [bbc.co.uk]
A group of prostitutes thought to be immune to HIV have now become infected, causing dismay to scientists hoping to develop an Aids vaccine.
Re:Infect Him Again (Score:5, Informative)
Complimentary to the article: African hookers (Score:2, Informative)
"Kings need to know these things."
Re:Other cases of HIV immunity (Score:2, Informative)
for more on what your saying
CCR5 mutation (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re:Refused? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:How sure? (Score:3, Informative)
From the article, it sounds like he only got two tests for HIV, so it's possible the first one was just a false positive. However, the description of him as suicidal and the fact that he waited so long before getting a second test seems to indicate that either he doesn't know much about HIV transmission or he did engage in behavior that put him at HIV infection risk.
Either way, I'm sure that researchers will find something interesting if he's willing to help out. If it wasn't a false positive and his body was able to clear itself of HIV, that would be quite an accomplishment.
HIV Virus (Score:1, Informative)
Re:This guy wants compensation?! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Most likely explanation (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Most likely explanation (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Other cases of HIV immunity (Score:4, Informative)
He didn't trust original clinic (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Science subject (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Infect Him Again (Score:3, Informative)
As the sentence you point out is not a direct quote, it's not what these unspecified "experts" said; it's what the journalist thought they meant. Even at the BBC science journalism isn't necessarily written by people who properly understand the subject under discussion. See Guardian science writer Ben Goldacre's critique of science reporting in the media [guardian.co.uk] to get an idea of how this kind of meaningless story comes about:
Re:This guy wants compensation?! (Score:3, Informative)
That's even assuming that the story was reported accurately, which you also don't know.
CXCR4 mutation? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Most likely explanation (Score:5, Informative)
Good grief. It doesn't *indicate* anything, or "suggest" in the manner the grandparent post used the word. It's a guideline or a rule of thumb that says, "choose the simpler possibility."
Actually, (Score:2, Informative)
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"]
Tests Were Accurate (Score:5, Informative)
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."
Re:This guy wants compensation?! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:CCR5 mutation (Score:3, Informative)
Not likely but...
Re:Sex with virgin = AIDS cure (Score:2, Informative)
There is a well know comedian called Pieter-Dirk Uys [pdu.co.za] 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.
Not anymore. (Score:4, Informative)
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 [wikipedia.org]
Re:How sure? (Score:5, Informative)
Not in this case. From AFA:
14 months later a blood test suggested that he no longer carried the virus. A further three tests confirmed the finding.
Perhaps the guy just wants to lead a normal life now. He should be in his full right to choose so, and no one has the right to claim that he must do anything -- it's his life and his choices. He doesn't owe HIV infected people or "humanity" any damn thing.
Someone here proposed harassing him. I find that totally reprehensible, and just recommending it is illegal most places. Post that recommendation again with your full name and address.
What's next? What else should be forced upon individuals because it's clearly in the best interest of humanity? Where are the limits? Anyone who doesn't think there are any, and that the need of humanity goes before the need of individuals have justified Dr Mengele and his research too.
Regards,
--
*Art
Re:How sure? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:HIV is getting milder (Score:3, Informative)
I've wondered about this before. Wouldn't the ideal of a virus, then, be to reach a benign equilibrium with the host? Some sort of interaction that left the host infected, but symptom-free (or nearly so)? Does the virus, then, become just another hunk of protein our body creates?
How would this change the way we think about viruses and disease? What might this mean about our own evolution? Might we be passing benign 'viruses' around to each other all the time, but without noticing because either there are no symptoms or very few?
Forgive me if these are stupid questions, but it's not really my field.
Re:HIV is getting milder (Score:3, Informative)
There are two* main reasons why diseases 'get milder' - evolution and antibodies.
evolution: There are multiple forms of the disease. Those that don't kill a host as quickly have more chance to be exposed to others and continue to exist, those that kill too quickly (for the most part) die out.
antibodies: Our bodies create antibodies after an initial exposure to something, so that next time we recognize it sooner and can defend against it that much better.**
* that I can come up with off the top of my head.
** gross oversimplification
Re:Wait (Score:3, Informative)
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 [avert.org] for stats.
Re:How sure? (Score:2, Informative)
Multiple exposure (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re:How sure? (Score:3, Informative)
It does sound all but useless, which makes me wonder whether you got the facts right. I did a quick google, and found this link [cdc.gov], showing effectiveness of different tests. None of these look like simple white cell counts. Doesn't say anything about which is the most common, but this page [fda.gov] from the FDA would seem to have all the common ones - note the one that was withdrawn because it was unreliable. So where did you see this information about using white blood cells?
Re:It's not surprising (Score:1, Informative)
That's a little like saying that this rock I'm holding is keeping all of the tigers away, but there are similar cases involving HIV-contaminated needlestick injuries in which the worker did not follow the post-exposure protocols fully and is now infected with HIV.
For a bit more information, read this whitepaper: Ignorance of post-exposure prophylaxis guidelines following HIV needlestick injury may increase the risk of seroconversion [oxfordjournals.org]